Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

FAIR ISLE AND SUMBURGH (SHETLAND) MAIL SERVICE.

Copy ordered,
Of contract between the Postmaster-General and Messrs. Stout, of Fair Isle. Shetland, for the conveyance of mails between Fair Isle and Sumburgh (Shetland), together with a copy of the Treasury Minute thereon, dated the 23rd day of October. 1923."— [Mr. Ronald McNeill.]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.

Colonel DAY: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is proposed to make any further payments in respect of reparations for ex-enemy damage in this country; and what is the amount of money unspent of the sums voted by Parliament for the payment of compensation?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): In reply to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for Southampton (Colonel Perkins) yesterday. The sum of £5,300,000 has been allocated to grants in re6pect of damage by enemy action: the amount expended up to the 11th November is £4,856,606.

Colonel DAY: How many more claims are outstanding for settlement?

Mr. McNEILL: I could not tell the hon. Member that. The difficulty is in getting in the claims.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: What is going to happen to the unexpended balance of the £5,300,000?

Mr. McNEILL: That is not an unexpended balance.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Are the Government not getting rather unexpected receipts from Germany under the property right and interest claims, and, in view of this unexpected income, will they consider the making of a further grant.

Mr. McNEILL: I must ask the hon. Member for notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADSIDE PKTROL PUMPS.

Colonel DAY: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he contemplates legislation, with a view to powers being vested in inspectors of weights and measures, that will allow for the testing of roadside petrol pumps as to their accuracy?

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can make any statement as to the date of introduction of the promised legislation dealing with petrol measuring pumps: and whether the proposals will entail alteration of a large, number of such pumps now in existence all over the country?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I hope to introduce legislation the effect of which will be to bring petrol pumps within the full scope of the existing Weights and Measures Act. 1004. While I think such legislation is desirable, it is right that I should state that the majority of the pumps at present in service are of patterns which have already been submitted to the Board of Trade and approved under the provisions of Section 6 of the Weights and Measures Act, 1004, and it is not anticipated that any Regulations which may be made will involve any material alterations to such pumps.

Colonel DAY: When will legislation be introduced? Will it be in this Session?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: What I propose to do is to introduce the Bill, so that it can be printed and circulated. What progress can be made with it this Session, obviously I cannot say. If there is common consent, it may be possible to make some progress.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD COUNCIL.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many times the Food Commission has met since its inauguration; and what action it has taken?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Royal Commission on Food Pries ceased at the end of last April. The Food Council to which I therefore presume the hon. and gallant Member refers, has Held five full meetings since its establishment at the end of July, and its committees have held 11 meetings. The results of the council's work are embodied in the reports which the council has made to me, and in the statements issued to the Press from time to time by the council and its committees. I am sending copies of these reports and statements to the hon. and gallant Member for his information, and I have had copies placed in the Library.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the work of the Food Council has led to any reduction in the cost of living generally?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think undoubtedly it has led to a reduction in the price of bread.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that, with the exception of sugar, practically every main food product is up, in wholesale and retail price?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. Gentleman, with his experience at the Board of Trade and in another sphere, will have appreciated that no council is capable of controlling world economic forces.

Oral Answers to Questions — BALANCE OF TRADE.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the approximate balance of trade to 1st October, 1925, after deducting invisible exports from the excess of imports over exports?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: While I hope to be able to estimate, in due course, the trade balance for the year 1925 as a whole, the information avail-
able is not sufficiently detailed to justify me in attempting such estimates at frequent intervals.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE (INTERNEES IN GERMANY).

Brigadier-General BROOKE: 8 and 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many claims of men of the mercantile marine interned in Germany at the outbreak of war have new been satisfactorily settled; what is the average payment made; and how many more claims remain to be adjusted;
(2) whether claims are still accepted on behalf of men of the mercantile marine interned in Germany on the outbreak of war; whether, since the names of these men were obtainable from the shipping companies, the authorities approached them all direct or left the men to send in their claims themselves; and what was the number of such claims sent in as compared with the actual number of men interned?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As the answer is rather long, perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will agree to its being circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Captain BENN: Is it a fact that the owners of ships have been compensated fur the loss of their property and the men who were interned have not been compensated for the loss of their liberty?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Under the Treaty these are two quite disconnected subjects. The hon. and gallant Gentleman must put down that question.

Mr. LANSBURY: Property first!

Following is the answer:

Of the 921 claims lodged under Clause 4 of the Annex to Section IV of Part X of the Treaty of Versailles by members of the British mercantile marine, 216 have now been settled and paid through the Clearing Office, while 87, which were covered, by adverse decisions of the Arbitrator, have been rejected. The average payment is £425 10s. 618 claims still remain to be settled; out of these 618 claims, however, in 116 cases offers of settlement have already been made by the German authorities and accepted by the claimants, and await formal confirmation by the Arbitrator, while in 129
further cases offers of settlement made by the German authorities have been communicated by the Clearing Office to the claimants, and the replies of the claimants are now awaited.

Claims are still accepted by the Clearing Office, but those lodged after the date of an agreement concluded on May 22nd last with the German authorities do not fall within the scope of that agreement.

The Clearing Office has been in constant communication with the unions and societies representing the various grades of officers and seamen, and forwarded proofs of claim to all members of these unions and societies who were notified to it as having been illegally detained. The necessity of lodging claims with the Clearing Office was also widely advertised in the Press, and all members of the mercantile marine who registered claims in respect of internment with the Reparation Claims Department, and appeared to be entitled to lodge claims under Clause 4, received from the Clearing Office copies of forms and instructions for lodging such claims. The number of claims lodged under Clause 4 by members of the mercantile marine is 921, as stated at the beginning of this answer. The figure of the total number of men interned is not here relevant, as it is only a special class which is entitled to lodge claims under Clause 4.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS TRANSPORT SERVICES.

Mr. MACKENZIE LIVINGSTONE: 10.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether the Committee set up by him on the 26th May to inquire into the transport and mail services in the Highlands and Islands has submitted its Report, and, if so, whether he can now promise some immediate improvements?

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): The conference referred to in the question has recently completed its work and reported to me. I am examining the matter in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General, but I cannot at present make any statement as to possible improvements.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman continue the drifter service which is of such great advantage to the more inaccessible communities in the Western Isles?

Sir J. GILMOUR: That is quite another question, but I am looking into that matter.

Mr. MACPHERSON: May I have an answer in the course of a day or two with regard to it, because the people are very concerned?

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: Will the report be submitted to this House?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir. It is a private report to my Department.

KILMARNOCK POLICE FORCE.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has received a request from the Kilmarnock Town Council for the holding of a public inquiry into the dismissal of two constables from the local police force, whether he has given any consideration to it, whether he intends to authorise an inquiry, and if so upon what lines is the inquiry to proceed?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have received a request from the Town Council and I propose to institute an inquiry. I consider it desirable that evidence should be taken on oath, and with that object both Houses will be asked at any early date to pass a Resolution under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921. If and when this is done, I will be prepared to advise His Majesty to appoint a tribunal to hold the inquiry.

BRITISH EMBASSY STAFFS.

Mr. ALBERY: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state, in two categories, giving their official designations, the principal officials employed in a British Embassy, the first category to include those officials whose duties are principally of a diplomatic nature, the second category to state those officials whose duties are principally concerned with commercial and trading interests?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): A typical distri-
bution of the principal officials at a British Embassy would be as follows:

Political:

Counsellor.
First Secretary.
Second Secretary.
Third Secretary.

Commercial:

Commercial Counsellor.
Commercial Secretary.

The Ambassador is responsible for both the political and the commercial sides of the work.

Mr. ALBERY: Will the Government consider a redistribution of these duties more in keeping with the importance of the trade and commerce of this country?

Mr. SAMUEL: The Government are very much alive to the necessity of making these arrangements in such a form as will help trade and industry. If the hon. Member has any suggestions to make with a view to improving these arrangements, I shall gratefully look into them.

COAL INDUSTRY.

Colonel DAY: 11.
asked the Secretary for Mines how many mines have been opened or reopened since 1st August, 1925; how many mines have been closed since that date; and what is the estimated cost to the State for the months of August, September, and October in respect of the subsidy in aid of wages?

Captain GARRO-JONES: 13.
asked the Secretary for Mines how many coal pits have been closed, how many old pits reopened, and how many new mines opened during the three months August, September, and October?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane-Fox): During the three months August, September and October, 111 coal mines, normally employing 29,124 wage-earners, have been closed and not reopened, while 99 mines at present employing 23,514 wage-earners have been reopened and 29 new mines at present-employing 503 wage-earners have been opened. With regard to the last part of the question I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I
gave yesterday to the hon. and gallant Member for Hackney South (Captain Garro-Jones).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us— or find out —what has been the loss to the ratepayers owing to these mines being closed down?

Colonel LANE-FOX: No, Sir. I could not do so off-hand.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand from these figures that there are 53,000 fewer miners working now than when the subsidy was commenced?

Colonel LANE-FOX: That is not borne out by the figures I have given. You cannot take one set of figures without the other.

Sir R. HAMILTON: 12.
(for Mr. MORRIS) asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can state, to the last convenient date, the amount of subsidy owing and paid to the coal industry?

Colonel LANE-FOX: The total subvention for the three months to 31st October is estimated to amount to about £6,000,000. The amount paid up to that date was £4,847,626.

Mr. W. THORNE: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman state the amount of money that has been paid to the miners themselves out of the subsidy, and the amount paid to the mine-owners?

Colonel LANE-FOX: No, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is very little in the way of profit. There are only two districts in the months of August and September showing any profit at all.

Mr. MACLEAN: May we take it from that, then, that the whole of the £6,000,000 has gone to the mine-owners?

Colonel LANE-FOX: No. The hon. Member may take it in exactly the opposite direction.

Mr. HARDIE: Have the Secretary for Mines and his Department tried in these figures to show how much of that subsidy to the owners has gone to pits that were working when the subsidy was established and how much to pits that have been established since the subsidy was given?

Colonel LANE-FOX: I must have notice of that question.

RURAL ROADS.

Mr. ALBERY: 14.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is able to hold out the hope of any further financial assistance towards the upkeep of essentially rural roads; and, if so, whether he is taking action which will enable such repairs to be carried out during the present winter?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement which I made in the House on 5th August last and which is reported in column 1480 of the bound Volume 187 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. AS the money will not be available until next financial year, I am unable to arrange for the execution of any additional work on roads in rural areas during the coming winter, but I expect to be able to settle in advance the details of the works to be undertaken when the new year opens.

Mr. HURD: I suppose there will be unemployment grants coming to the rural roads in the ensuing winter?

Colonel ASHLEY: No doubt representations have been made to the Unemployment Grants Committee and will be forwarded to my Department in the usual course.

NAVAL DISARMAMENT (WASHINGTON TREATY).

Commander BELLAIRS: 15.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the Board of Admiralty have represented to the Defence Committee and the Cabinet the increased risks to commerce through the Root Resolutions of the Washington Treaty being non-operative through the failure of the French Parliament to ratify them?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): The reply is in the negative. As my hon. and gallant Friend was informed on the 5th August last, the Root Resolutions, being conditional on ratification by all the signatories, have never become operative.

Commander BELLAIRS: Could the Admiralty stir up the Foreign Office to make representations to the French Government?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Quite obviously that is one of the subjects which could be discussed in any Disarmament Conference.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

RELIEF SCHEMES.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 20.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of men employed on works instituted by local authorities and others under schemes sanctioned by the Unemployment Grants Committee; the total amount of expenditure involved; and the corresponding figures for a year ago?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): On the 31st October, 33,542 men were directly employed on schemes assisted by the Unemployment Grants Committee, as compared with 29,383 at a similar date last year. The estimated cost of schemes approved by the Committee from the 25th June to the 31st October this year was £10,200,000, as compared with £7,867,000 last year.

EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether it is proposed to establish a number of additional Employment Exchanges, and, if so, how many, and by how many persons would they be staffed; whether he will give reasons for such additions, and figures showing their estimated cost?

Mr. BETTERTON: There is no present intention of establishing additional Employment Exchanges. New premises for existing exchanges are from time to time being substituted for inadequate or unsatisfactory accommodation, but this frequently enables the Department to effect economies both in staff and the cost of premises.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House what economies will be effected by a change to other premises?

Mr. BETTERTON: It is impossible at the moment to answer that in detail.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

BUILDING PRICES.

Sir W. de FRECE: 17.
asked the Minister of Health the number of houses either constructed or building to date under the various Housing Acts; and whether he can indicate the present average price of such houses as compared with the prices on 1st June, 1925, and 1st January, 1925?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): Up to the 1st instant the number of houses which had been completed in State-assisted schemes under the Housing Acts of 1919, 1923 and 1924 was 344,274, and a further 74,767 were under construction at that date. The average prices of houses included in contracts let by local authorities during October last were £447 for non-parlour houses, as compared with £436 at 1st June and £440 at 1st January, 1925. These prices do not include the cost of land and development. Particulars are not available as to the average prices of houses erected by private enterprise.

Mr. W. THORNE: Can the hon. Gentleman state whether there is any continued rise in the price of building materials between the dates mentioned?

Sir K. WOOD: I think that is dealt with in the next question.

SKILLED LABOUR AND BUILDING MATERIAL.

Sir W. de FRECE: 18.
asked the Minister of Health if he is now satisfied that there is sufficient labour for the construction of the houses needed: and whether there has been evidence of any undue attempt to raise the prices of building material?

Sir K. WOOD: While considerable progress is now being made with house construction, my right hon. Friend thinks it is generally recognised that the supply of skilled building labour is still not equal to demands. With regard to the last part of the question, the information in my right hon. Friend's possession does not indicate that there have been recently any undue attempts to raise the prices of building material.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is the Ministry of Health aware of any due attempt to raise the prices?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that there are thousands of skilled building operatives out of work to-day and receiving unemployment pay?

Sir K. WOOD: That may be so, and if certain skilled branches of the building trade were augmented, I have no doubt they would be able to obtain employment.

Mr. W. THORNE: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the report in the papers to the effect that between the dates mentioned the price of building materials per house has been raised about £10?

Sir K. WOOD: No, and if my hon. Friend will recall the figures I gave just now, he will see that the price of non-parlour houses in contracts let during October last was £447, compared with £436 at 1st June and £440 at 1st January last.

SLUM CLEARANCE.

Mr. ALBERY: 19.
asked the Minister of Health if he can now make any statement as to the proposed legislation of the Government for dealing with slum areas; and whether he will state the progress now made by the local authorities in clearing condemned property and re-housing the tenants?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to make an announcement with regard to the first part of the hon. Member's question. With regard to the last part, the position at present is that 70 local authorities have since 1919 submitted 91 schemes for the improvement of unhealthy areas, and 82 schemes have been confirmed. Of the 10,463 houses and other buildings included in confirmed schemes, 3,023 had been acquired and 1,246 demolished on the 1st October last. With regard to re-housing in connection with these schemes tenders had been approved or loans sanctioned for 3,136 houses, of which 1,450 had been completed.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Is there any likelihood of our having any pronouncement on the subject of the first part of the question, so that we can take the matter up in earnest next Session?

Sir K. WOOD: My hon. and gallant Friend will observe that my right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to make a statement, and I think he will agree
that we are pursuing house construction and slum clearance on right lines by getting new houses built first.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Is it the intention of the Minister of Health to bring forward new legislation, or has he dropped that intention?

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. and gallant Gentleman evidently did not hear the reply to the first part of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES.

INQUIRIES.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 5.
(for Mr. MORRIS) asked the President of the Board of Trade how many inquiries have been held under the Safeguarding of Industries Act; how many have reported; and whether the Government have reached any decision on any of the Reports and, if so, what decision?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Thanet (Mr. Harmsworth) of which I am sending him a copy.

GERMAN REPRESENTATIONS

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: (by Private Notice) asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the German Government have made representations to the effect that the policy of safeguarding of industries adopted by His Majesty's Government is likely to interfere with the most-favoured-nation clauses of the Anglo-German Commercial Treaty, and, if so, what answer has been made to their representations?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The duties contemplated under the new safeguarding proposals of His Majesty's Government are duties applied equally to imports from all foreign countries, and are, therefore, in strict conformity with the most-favoured-nation clause of the Anglo-German Commercial Treaty. The German Government have, however, raised the question of the hearing of the Protocol to that Treaty on duties of this character. In reply His Majesty's Government have called attention to the fact that the. Protocol reserves to both parties the right to take appropriate measures to preserve their own industries.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, as a result of this difference of opinion, which was urged by the German Government, there has been delay in making the Treaty operative for the development of Trade?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, absolutely none.

JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGULATION OF REPORTS) BILL.

Sir EVELYN CECIL: 22.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government can see their way to give facilities for the further progress of the Judicial Proceedings (Regulation of Reports) Bill, now that it has passed its Third Reading in another place?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): In view of the extreme pressure on Parliamentary time, I see no prospect of facilities being given for the Bill referred to by my right hon. Friend. The Government propose, however, carefully to consider the whole matter during the Recess.

IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.

Mr. HANNON: 23.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to make any statement on the policy of the Government towards the safeguarding of the iron and steel industries?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave yesterday to a similar question from the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn).

Mr. HANNON: Is there any truth in the statement which appears in one of the morning papers to-day that the proceedings of the Committee have broken down?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have not seen the statement, nor is it true.

Mr. MACKINDER: Ts it not a fact that a large amount of pig iron produced by cheap labour in India, and subsidised, is imported now into this country?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have a very profound mistrust of everything that is called a fact.

FIGHTING SERVICES (ENTRANTS' PAY).

Captain GARRO-JONES: 24.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can make any statement regarding the pay of new entrants to the Army, Navy and Air Force?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I gave yesterday in reply to a similar question by the hon. Member for East Bradford (Mr. Fenby).

Mr. LAWSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow the House an early opportunity of discussing the new rates of pay?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not see any immediate prospect of that.

INTER-ALLIED DEBTS.

Mr. HURD: 25.
(for Mr. H. WILLIAMS) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is in a position to make a further statement as to the negotiations with regard to inter-Allied debts?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): As regards the French Debt, during the Parliamentary Recess I received a letter from Monsieur Caillaux informing me that the French Government accept in principle the arrangement that the French War Debt to this country should be discharged by annuities averaging £12,500,000 a year within a period of 62 years, subject to the further discussion of various outstanding points. Negotiations in regard to these outstanding points have been inevitably delayed by the political situation in France. But the discussions will be resumed shortly in order to complete the agreement.
As regards Italy, the Italian Government have been invited to send representatives to this country to negotiate for the funding of their War Debt and the discussions will take place at an early date.
With regard to other countries the House is already aware that the Relief Debts of Latvia and Lithuania were repaid on 1st January, 1925, and that funding arrangements have been made covering the relief debts of Poland, Rumania,
Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Esthonia —in fact for all countries owing Relief Debts except Yugo Slavia and Armenia.
Further arrangements have been made covering minor post-War debts either for munitions or for repatriation with Poland, Rumania, Czecho Slovakia, Greece, Esthonia and Latvia. Claims under this head are still outstanding against Yugo Slavia and Lithuania.
Finally, I am glad to be able to tell the House that a settlement as regards War Debt has been reached with Rumania on the same general basis of principle as that offered to France. The War Debts of Portugal, Greece and Yugo Slavia remain outstanding but I hope that agreements may be reached in their case within the next few months.

Sir F. WISE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman when he proposes to start negotiations with the Italian Government?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Shortly — very shortly—at an early date—quite soon.

Mr. W. THORNE: When the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes his next Budget Statement, I take it for granted he will tell the House the amount of money received for Allied War debts, and how it is going to be used?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Certainly, I will. Of course, we are paying interest on Debt at the present time at a very high rate, and receipts from foreign sources go in reduction of that interest charge.

Mr. DALTON: Have the Italian Government been notified by His Majesty's Government that they will be expected to pay the same regard to their obligations to this country as to the United States of America?

Mr. CHURCHILL: We have always made it perfectly clear that the principle of pari passu treatment of this country by its debtors is one to which we are most firmly attached.

McKENNA DUTIES.

Sir F. WISE: 29.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of revenue collected under the McKenna Duties for 1925 up to date?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The net amount of revenue collected in respect of the McKenna Duties during the period 1st July to 31 October, 1925, is £359,690.

IMPERIAL PREFERENCE.

Sir F. WISE: 30.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total cost to the revenue of the Imperial Preference for 1925 to date?

Mr. CHURCHILL: On the basis of a comparison of the amount of duty paid in the period on goods subject to preference with the amount that would have been payable on the same goods had there been no preference the estimated cost to the revenue of Imperial Preference during the nine months, January to September of the present year, is £2,309,000. It will be appreciated that this figure does not take into account any effect on consumption that may have resulted from the alterations in duty on Empire goods.

NATIONAL REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE.

Commander BELLAIRS: 31.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of events producing changes in the Budget Estimates, whether it is anticipated that revenue and expenditure will balance; and, if not, whether fresh proposals are to be made?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It would be premature to forecast the out-turn of the year's finance, but I have no reason at present to believe that the Budget, apart from the coal subvention, will not be realised. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Commander BELLAIRS: 32.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes have been made, or are contemplated, as the result of the Economy Committees that have been set up?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given yesterday by the Prime Minister in reply to questions by the hon. Members for Blackpool (Sir W. de Frece) and the Western Isles (Mr. Mackenzie Livingstone).

NAVAL OFFICERS' MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.

Mr. HARRISON: 33.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to the £350,000 which appeared in the Navy Estimates for the provision of marriage allowance to naval officers, if Treasury approval will be given to the virement of this sum to other purposes; if so, what purposes; or whether it will be shown as a surplus at the end of the financial year?

Mr. McNEILL: I hope that there will be no deficiency or necessity for unforeseen expenditure involving the exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Appropriation Act, but until occasion arises and the facts are before me, I cannot say what the Treasury would decide.

REPARATION RECEIPTS.

Mr. HURD: 26.
(for Mr. H. WILLIAMS) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what have been the receipts of the Treasury by way of reparations since 1st April, 1925?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given yesterday to the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise).

EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.

Mr. HURD: 27.
(for Mr. H. WILLIAMS) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the gross receipts and the repayments of Excess Profits Duty since 1st April, 1925?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The approximate gross receipt of Excess Profits Duty (including Munitions Levy) from the 1st April to the 31st October, 1925, was £5,123,000. Repayments of duty during the same period amounted to £5,308,000.

NATIONAL FASCISTI (WITHDRAWAL OF PROSECUTION).

Mr. THOMAS: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the wide dissatisfaction amongst the public with the action taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions in connection with the case of the four National
Fascisti who admitted taking possession by force of a "Daily Herald" motor van, and further with damaging the van; and whether, in view of the serious danger that such action may destroy public confidence in the impartial administration of justice, he can give the House any explanation regarding the action of the Director of Public Prosecutions in this case?

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has asked me to reply. I am aware that in certain quarters dissatisfaction has been expressed at the action taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions in connection with the case of the four National Fascisti in regard to their action on the 17th October last in taking possession of a "Daily Herald" van and its contents, to which damage was caused. The evidence as reported by the police to the Director of Public Prosecutions was, in his opinion, clearly insufficient to support the charge of larceny preferred against the men, and I am satisfied that he was right in that view. In these circumstances, it would have been highly improper and oppressive to have persisted in the prosecution. But it was obviously undesirable that no steps should be taken against the perpetrators of this outrage, and accordingly one of the four men who was found to be in possession of a revolver without a licence was charged with that offence and convicted and fined £20, or one month's imprisonment. In addition, on the 31st October, after the Public Prosecutor had decided that the charge of larceny was not sustainable, an information was preferred against all four by him. following the precedent established over 12 years ago in the case of Lansbuvy r. Riley, and summonses were issued returnable on the 3rd November, and on these each of the four men was bound over in a surety of £100 to be of good behaviour for 12 months, or in default to be imprisoned for six months. The defendant who was fined £20 for the offence against the Firearms Act could neither pay his fine nor find a surety, and is now in Wandsworth Prison.

Mr. THOMAS: It is impossible to deal by question and answer with the issues raised by my right hon. Friend, and I beg
to give notice that the necessary steps will be taken to obtain time for a Debate through the usual channels.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Attorney-General to tell me what the circumstances were; I do not remember them.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Gentleman's name—I do not say it was the hon. Gentleman—appears in the case of Lansbury against Riley, which was heard in the King's Bench Division on Monday, the 28th July, 1913.

Mr. LANSBURY: I do not think it was me.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Gentleman will do me the justice of saying that in quoting the case I did not say he was the person. The person named in that case was George Lansbury, of 35, Atherstone Road, Bow.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will you allow me to make a personal explanation? It happens not to be the name of the person who lived in that house at Atherstone Road, and it happens that it is not me, because I never lived there, and if that is a legal record, I beg to inform the Attorney-General that it is quite inaccurate, and not true. No person of the name of George Lansbury lived at 35, Atherstone Road at that time. [Interruption.] I happen to know, and you do not, and he does not, and that record is wrong.

Captain GEE: May I ask the Attorney-General if he can give an unqualified statement that no political pressure was brought to bear upon the Public Prosecutor in the action he took?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am very glad to answer that question. No political pressure or other pressure of any kind whatever was brought to bear on the Public Prosecutor in the action he took.

Captain BENN: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the Public Prosecutor consulted any Member of the Government before deciding to withdraw the charge?

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL: The answer is this: Before proceeding to withdraw the charge, the Public Prosecutor did not consult any Member of the Government The only Member of the
Government who even knew what was going to happen was myself. I only knew it the day before the actual appearance in Court which was, I think, two or three days after notice was given to the magistrate's clerk. The Public Prosecutor was seeing me about another matter. I had some days previously had some discussion with him in giving leave to apply for the issue of a search warrant in order to raid the Fascisti premises. The Public Prosecutor thought I would be interested to know what was going to happen, and he told me the course it was proposed to take the next day.

Captain BENN: Would it be right to assume that when the Public Prosecutor made his speech in Court he did so after consultation with the right hon. Gentleman?

HON. MEMBERS: No, no!

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am sorry if I have not made it clear. There was no consultation with mo. I was told the day before the statement was made in Court—I do not think it was said by the Public Prosecutor but by his subordinate—that the prosecution could not go on because there was no case. I expressed my regret that nothing could be found to be done against the Fascisti, because I thought it very desirable that any proper steps should be taken. The Public Prosecutor told me that he had found a case, Lansbury versus Riley, which we now know is not the name for the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley, but another gentleman of the same name.

Mr. LANSBURY: It is not true!

Mr. DALTON: Keep to the point, and don't try to be funny.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: On being told that, I said I was very glad to hear that he had found there was some way of dealing with the matter.

Mr. THOMAS: Might I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether the circumstances of talking to the Public Prosecutor which he has now described— he did not attempt to influence him—are not somewhat identical with what happened 12 months ago—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am very glad to have the opportunity of
answering that. So far from being identical, they are exactly the contrary. In the case to which my right hon. Friend refers, as I understand it, instructions were given by the Attorney-General, at the instance of the Cabinet, to the Public Prosecutor. In the case which I have dealt with no instructions were given by anyone: the Public Prosecutor was taking certain steps in the ordinary course of his duty, and he informed me of the steps he had decided to take, I think, 24 hours before he actually took them.

Captain BENN: May I ask the Prime Minister if he will consent to a public inquiry into the matter?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think hon. Members are anticipating the Debate of which notice has been given.

FOREIGN LOANS (REMOVAL OF EMBARGO).

Mr. HARMSWORTH: (by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the recent decision to remove the embargo on Dominion and Foreign loans being raised in this country provided for guarantees that money loaned should be expended entirely upon goods produced or manufactured within the United Kingdom?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer my hon. Friend to what I said at Sheffield on this subject. [An HON. MEMBER: "When?"] Last week. Once the so-called embargo has been removed it is not practicable to prescribe exact conditions to the market. It must either be removed or maintained, and I am satisfied that at the present time the right course was removal. All loans must ultimately go out in goods or services.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Did not the right hon. Gentleman say at Sheffield that over-lending would bring its own corrective; and does he hold that that corrective would be in the form of adverse circumstances to the workers of this country?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Of course, on the removal of the so-called embargo we had hopes that it would give a certain stimulus to our export trade, and that
that would be beneficial to the workers of the country. If over-lending took place, two things would happen. In the first place, the underwriters would find themselves charged with heavy liabilities, and there would be a check on further lending. Secondly, over-lending certainly affects the financial conditions, and may eventuate in an alteration of the Bank rate. I have no reason to believe that the circumstances of the present time render such an event likely.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: If the right hon. Gentleman is right, and the removal of the embargo would help our export trade, why keep that embargo on for 10 months?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I shall be delighted to make a speech on that topic, but really I could not do justice to it unless I trespassed upon the time of the House in a way I do not want to do.

Mr. ALEXANDER: This is rather an important question, may I put one more query? Is it not within the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge that periods of unemployment have definitely followed five or six cases of overlending in this country, and, in the removal of the embargo in the present trade depression, has he taken that into consideration?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir. We are endeavouring to return to the normal, and we believe that such return will produce, on a broad view, an improvement in the employment of the people.

ROAD FUND.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: (by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the amount of the Road Fund; and whether he proposes to seek Parliamentary sanction to divert part, and if so, what part of that fund to any other purpose, and whether that purpose is, or includes the Coal Subsidy?

Mr. KENNEDY: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. There is a notice on the paper of a question on the same subject. I wish to ask if it is in order to anticipate it by a Private Notice question?

Mr. SPEAKER: The point had escaped my notice. If that be so, I cannot accept
the Private Notice question of the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet.

LONDON BOOK PUBLISHING TRADE DISPUTE.

Mr. PENNY: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the victimisation of newsagents throughout the country and the great loss they are sustaining in their business by the action of the Paper Workers' Union in causing supplies of newspapers to be withheld from them, and whether he has any intention of intervening?

Mr. BETTERTON: I am aware of the dispute in the London Book Publishing Trade to which my hon. Friend refers. The parties to the dispute are aware that the services of my Department are available to help them in reaching a settlement, if they so desire.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Is the Minister aware that these unfortunate newsvendors are refused supplies even from the newspapers themselves, who have been informed that if they supply them the whole of their operatives will be brought out on strike and the. paper closed down? Will the Government take some action to stop this interference with trade?

Captain GEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is impossible for any newsagent in London to get one additional copy above his ordinary number, in case the supplies should be carried to other districts?

Mr. BETTERTON: Yes, Sir, I am aware that considerable hardships have been experienced arising out of the incidents to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers.

Captain GEE: Might I ask His Majesty's Government whether the Government rules this country or the trade unions?

Sir W. DAVISON: This is a very serious matter, affecting the business and livelihood of a large body of men. May I ask the Prime Minister whether the Government do not propose to take some action which will protect these men from this interference with their liberty?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON: reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Sir Cyril Cobb to act as Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of the Mining Industry (Welfare Fund) Bill) in place of Mr. Morgan Jones.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had added the following Member to Standing Committee C: Sir Burton Chadwick.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — EXPIRING LAWS BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Clause 1 (Certain Acts to be made permanent) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Certain Acts to be continued temporarily.)

Miss WILKINSON: I beg to move, in page 2, line 21, to leave out the words "to III, inclusive," and to insert instead thereof the words "and II."
I hope the Committee will forgive me if I explain briefly the purpose of this Amendment. In 1920 the country was faced with a very difficult situation owing to a very large number of women workers being suddenly thrown out of employment in munition works and no other work being found for them. It was suggested then that a temporary Measure should be passed to allow women to work between the hours of 6 o'clock in the morning and 10 o'clock at night. Under the Factory Acts the normal periods within which a woman has been allowed to work have been between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m., or 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., or, in the case of non-textile factories, 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. There was a great deal of opposition to the idea of allowing women to work between such extended hours as six in the morning and ten at night, and a Commission was appointed to deal with the whole question. This Commission was faced with almost unanimous opposition from the trade unions, who pointed out the very real difficulties and hardships that would arise if these very long hours were sanctioned. I want to make it perfectly clear that it was not suggested that women should work from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., but that any employer of labour, after giving the proper notice, and provided that a sufficient number of his workpeople agreed, could work women at any time between those hours without making the necessary provision for overtime. In many cases girls were leaving home very early in the morning in order to start work at six o'clock, and with
these long hours there would be very little time for recreation or for evening classes or education, and the whole of the trade unions agreed that the proposed alteration was thoroughly unsound.
It was impressed upon the representatives of the trade unions who met that Commission, and I was one of the people who gave evidence, that this was a temporary measure, that it was to be in operation for five years, and that after that time the House of Commons would be able to go into the whole matter and revise it if necessary. It was impressed upon us, also, that there was a rush of replacement orders, that there was difficulty in getting plant and machinery and other difficulties consequent on the rush of the post-War period 1918–1921, when the boom was on, and that if a manufacturer were allowed to work his machines between the extended hours he could employ double, or nearly double, the amount of female labour, and that this would go a long way towards absorbing munition workers. Under those circumstances the representatives of the trade unions on the Commission agreed to this proposed alteration. Almost immediately afterwards, however, came the slump in industry, and those-large firms which had been pressing for this increase of hours had not, as a matter of fact, put them into operation. But this is where the difficulty arises. I have made inquiries on this subject, and I find that the type of firm taking advantage of this two-shift system is the worst type of firm, the sweating employer; and even of those who are taking advantage of it, only a comparatively small proporation asked for it. I do not say that when the rush of replacement orders swept across industry there might not have been some justification for this alteration; but I submit to the Under-Secretary for the Home Department that that crisis has passed, that there is now no difficulty whatever in getting any amount of plant, and that the whole basis of the employers' claim for these extended hours has completely disappeared. The only thing which happens now is that these extended hours can be used by certain rather undesirable employers of labour; and that so few decent employers are using this two-shift system that it is no longer necessary to include the Act under the Expiring Laws Bill for another term of years.
I submit to the Under-Secretary that this is no party matter. We have had five years' experience of this without the House having had any opportunity of passing an opinion upon it. The experience of those five years, or at any rate the last four of them, after the immediate crisis has passed, has been such as to make it perfectly plain that this Clause is no longer necessary, and in the interests of the health of the people and family life, and the necessity for recreation, I would like to ask the Home Secretary, who probably has not considered this question very closely, whether it would not be possible to accept this Amendment which I am moving on behalf of the Labour party.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson): I am sorry that the Home Secretary is not here to reply to the hon. Lady who has just sat down, but the Government thought that she was going to move the second Amendment which stands in her name on the Paper, and which I think would have been a more convenient way of dealing with this question. I do not think the Mover of this Amendment has shown any urgent reason why this Clause should, be dropped. The hon. Lady requires this change made in regard to the two-shift system provided for under the 1920 Act, but apparently she does not realise that under that Act you cannot have this two-shift system put into operation unless there has been a joint representation made by the employers and employed, and even after that there has to be a very careful inquiry into the matter, and the Secretary of State has to decide whether a case for issuing an Order has been made out.

Miss WILKINSON: Is it not a fact that the Act does not definitely state that the consent of the trade unions has to be obtained, because that is an important point. In a trade where the workers are not properly organised the employer can get the workpeople to agree to almost anything.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The Act deals with this matter quite clearly. It lays down that the Secretary of State may, on the joint application of employers and employés in any factory or workshop, with the consent of the majority of the
workpeople concerned in such factory or workshop, issue an Order. When we have received any such applications no instance has come to our notice of any pressure having been put upon the employé. If we found that pressure had been brought to bear on the workpeople, the Secretary of State would not grant the application. Under this Act any industry can send a representation to the Secretary of State that they do not want such an Order put in force at all, and they have under the Act a month's grace after the Secretary of State has made such an Order in which they are able to get that Order rescinded. As a matter of fact, since the Act was passed, not one single case has occurred where any industry has sent in such a representation.

Miss WILKINSON: Is it not a fact that such representations were made in the case of the employés of Messrs. Lever Bros., and when the case was inquired into it was found that the Order had been put into force without the permission of the Home Secretary?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: My information is that no use whatever has been made of this provision under the Act. If the hon. Lady knows of any cases of this kind which are contrary to the law I should be very glad to have them. I do not think that this question assumes such proportions as the Mover of this Amendment has made out, because the total number of cases up to date is only 491, and as a matter of fact only about one-third of that number are at present in operation, and we have had scarcely any complaints at all. We have had a certain number of cases in which some; of the workers engaged have complained because they live too far away from the factory or workshop, but in those cases particular care has been taken to arrange where these workers are employed a long way from their homes that the Order only comes into force in reference to people who live fairly near the factory. After all we are only asking for this Act to operate for one year. It has now been in force five years, and we have had very few complaints in regard to its working. Generally speaking the local trade unions are in favour of it, and we have had very few complaints at the Home Office that the Act has worked unfairly.

Miss WILKINSON: Could the Undersecretary give me the name of one single trade union that gave evidence before the Commission that agreed to this Clause?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: What I stated was that while this Act has been in force we have had very few complaints from the trade unions that it was working unfairly. We have had one or two complaints that it operated rather harshly on people who had to go a long way to their homes, and we have taken care to see that some arrangement has been made for the accommodation of these people nearer their work before the Order has been made. Of course, the Home Secretary is always ready to do his best to mitigate any grievance under this Act, but in regard to the information received, we have no information at all that this. Act, generally speaking, has created any hardship.

Mr. T. SHAW: The Under-Secretary is evidently unaware that the opposition to this Clause comes from an organisation which represents more women than any other trade union in the country. I think the instances which have already been given ought to induce the Government to withdraw this Clause. What does the Clause do? It gives the Home Secretary power in certain circumstances to become a law-maker for himself, and to alter the normal law of the country as it now exists. So far as men are concerned, there is no protection in the law at present against the working of two shifts or the working of any hours, but women and young persons, under the normal law, have been safeguarded. This Clause gives the Home Secretary power at any time, on certain representations being made from any factory, to adopt a different principle from that embodied in the ordinary law of the country, and, possibly, to make Orders that will injure the best type of employer in the trade and give a premium to the poor employer.
Let me explain what the power is that is given to the Home Secretary. If in a Lancashire town a factory exists where the employer desires to work two shifts to reduce his overhead charges, and to work with female labour, it gives him power, if he can induce a majority of his workers to agree, whatever the rest of the trade may say, to make an application to the Home Secretary for an Order
allowing him to work two shifts—for that is what it comes to—while the rest or the trade may be working one. It may be said that the Home Secretary will exercise his discretion, but his discretion is not enough; the protection that the workers want is a definite protection laid down by Statute, and not by the benevolence either of the Home Secretary or of any other Minister. It is claimed that this Clause is relatively of little service to anybody, and it is claimed, on the other hand, that it has never been protested against. Then why not drop it, and revert to what was the ordinary law of the country before this special Clause was passed? It has been in operation for five years; why give anybody the privilege of introducing again in this country the abominable system of women and young persons getting up at half-past five in the morning, or, in the alternative, working till 10 at night? Surely, enough time has passed since the War to get rid of this Clause and revert to the protection that was given to women and young persons under the ordinary law.
I hope the Under-Secretary will see the argument I am trying to put forward, that no Minister of the Crown, however benevolent, however good his intentions, ought to have such a power as is given under this Clause except in extraordinary cirumstances. The extraordinary circumstances do not exist. The danger is due to the Clause, and more harm can come from it than ever there can be good. You can have applications from people who in the normal course of trade work certain hours; you can have one factory, one employer, or even one district, that can get these agreements, and, if that request is granted, you are placing the whole of the rest of the trade at a disadvantage in competing with the firm to whom this permission has been given. I appeal to the Under-Secretary to accept this Amendment, to go back to the law as it existed before this special provision was made, and to let us go on with the ordinary law of the land as it was before. No reasonable employer would ever desire again to have women and young persons getting up at five o'clock in the morning to go to work; there is no human being in the country who ever wants to go bark to that system. Why keep it in? Why not get rid of it and have done with it, and let us get on with our work?

Mr. MACKINOER: I want to support the contention that no reasonable employer would care to take advantage of this Clause. I believe that the method of industry is to get as near to a level of carrying on industry, and a level of overhead charges and all the rest of it, as possible, and I want to suggest that it is not in the best interests of the employers themselves that unscrupulous members of their class should try to take advantage of the workpeople, as undoubtedly they have.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: indicated dissent.

Mr. MACKINDER: I challenge the Home Office to produce any evidence that Messrs. Lever Bros. did make an application along with their workpeople before they put this Clause into operation. I state that they put it into operation before they applied. I make that definite charge, and I also make another charge—that the union of which I have the honour of being a member did make representations to the Home Office protesting vigorously against Clause 2. That evidence which was submitted to the Home Office by my union surely ought to be in the correspondence at the Home Office. The unions as a general body are opposed to the employment of women under this double-shift system. I want to tell the Home Secretary that in the case of Messrs. Lever Bros., which I have quoted, girls living in Liverpool have had to leave their beds at half-past four in the morning in order to be at work at Port Sunlight. They had to cross the river and wait for trams, and, as a matter of fact, special facilities had to be provided in order to get them to the works, even when they got up at half-past four.
We want to protect our people from the unreasonable employer. We who have been in the workshops know that when workpeople are called severally and individually into the office, or asked by the foreman, "Do you take exception to this?" they immediately think that if they do their job is gone. Naturally, married men, and women and young girls who have to earn their livelihood, will, rather than be discharged, say that they have no objection. That is not a proper method of getting an expression of opinion. I suggest that the only method of getting a real expression of
opinion is through the employés as a body and not as individuals. The other method is an unscrupulous and wrong method, which ought to be made impossible by law. In this case they did it first, and then, severally and individually, got hold of the employés and got them to acquiesce in the making of a joint application.
I want to press this point in the interest of the women. We who have had to deal with women working in the textile factories do not want our women ever again to have to get up at 5 o'clock in the morning in order to earn a living for themselves and their children. We object strenuously to that, and feel very strongly that these women ought to be protected by law, that it ought to be impossible for any employer to make use of the labour of women on this double-shift system. It is too bad for words. I thought we had got away from that, and were never going back to the old hours. Agreements have been made to that effect in the woollen textile industry between employers and employed, but, if an unscrupulous employer desires to remain outside the agreement, he can get his workpeople to give their acquiescence, and then make an application on their behalf to the Home Office and get that permission which the majority of the employers and employés in the industry do not desire. I do ask the Under-Secretary to take these things into consideration and withdraw the obnoxious Clause, so that it may not be possible for one employer to take advantage of others.

4.0 P.M.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not realise that these Orders have only been issued in very exceptional circumstances. They have only been issued where, for instance, there has been a fire and a breakdown of machinery, or to meet very exceptional seasonal pressure in certain industries, or to enable a contract to be secured requiring the installation of additional machinery or the building or enlargement of premises. In all of these cases the issue of the Order has prevented overtime work, and in every case it has helped employment. As the present state of unemployment is very severe, I hope this Amendment will not be pressed at this moment. If you will allow us to have it for another year. I can guarantee that at the Home Office
we will go into all the particular points made by the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) and the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Mackinder). I will look into the point about Lever Bros, especially. It is the first that I have heard of it. We will certainly look into all these cases, and I should like some representations from the trade unions or from somebody else affected. We will have an inquiry into the subject and look very carefully into it, but at the moment it would be a great pity without further inquiry to cut this out of the Bill. That is my offer.

Mr. KELLY: I am afraid, after the experience that we have had of the operation of this Act, we cannot agree to its prolongation for another year. The case quoted by the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Mackinder) is well known to the Department. The method adopted was for the foreman to go round the place consulting with a few of the girls, and they, thinking that there was nothing in the point, said, "Yes, we agree." It was not until the system was put into operation that the unions and the joint industrial council for the industry discovered what had been done. The Home Office at a later date did approve, and they said that they were quite satisfied that a vote had been taken and that both the employers and the employed were agreeable

to the operation of the scheme. When we asked some of the workpeople, they said that it was casually mentioned to them, and they said "Yes." The Home Office accepted that as being the voice of the workpeople upon the matter. It is not a question only of getting up at five o'clock in the morning. It is a question of some of the girls having to cross Liverpool at half-past three o'clock in the morning in order to catch a train on the other side of the Mersey so that they may reach their work. I will not ask anyone what he would think about asking young girls to cross the streets of Liverpool at half-past three or four o'clock in the morning. The police complained about it. You are asking us to agree to this system, and we are not prepared to do so. It is a system that is not needed. Dealing with many industries of this country, I can safely say that I know of no employers of any standing or federation of employers who have demanded it and who want it, and I am sure that you have had no representations from the employés asking for it. I hope, therefore, that you will agree to the withdrawal of this Act from the Bill to-day.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 266; Noes, 122.

Division No. 362.]
AYES.
[4.5 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Doyle, Sir N. Grattan


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Bullock, Captain M.
Drewe, C.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Elliot, Captain Walter E.


Apsley, Lord
Campbell, E. T.
Elveden, Viscount


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
England, Colonel A.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.).


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Chapman, Sir S.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Charterls, Brigadier-General J.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Christle, J. A.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Clarry, Reginald George
Fermoy, Lord


Bennett, A. J.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Fielden, E. B.


Berry, Sir George
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Finburgh, S.


Bethell, A.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.


Betterton, Henry B.
Cooper, A. Duff
Fleming, D. P.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cope, Major William
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Couper, J. B.
Forrest, W.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Crook, C. W.
Fraser, Captain Ian


Brass, Captain W.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Frece, Sir Walter de


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Fremantte, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Briggs, J. Harold
Dalkeith, Earl of
Ganzoni, Sir John


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Dalziel, Sir Davison
Gee, Captain R.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham


Brown, Maj. D. C.(N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Goff, Sir Park


Gower, Sir Robert
Looker, Herbert William
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Grace, John
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Grant, J. A.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Gretton, Colonel John
Lumley, L. R.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Grotrian, H. Brent
Lynn, Sir Robert J.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R.(Eastbourne)
Macintyre, Ian
Savery, S. S.


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
McLean, Major A.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W.)


Hammersley, S. S.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Hanbury, C.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Macquisten, F. A.
Shepperson, E. W.


Harland, A.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Harrison, G. J. C.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Meller, R. J.
Smithers, Waldron


Haslam, Henry C.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hawke, John Anthony
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Moles, Thomas
Stanley. Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Stanley Lord (Fylde)


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Hilton, Cecil
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Tinne, J. A.


Holland, Sir Arthur
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Holt, Captain H. P.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert



Hopkins, J. W. W.
Nuttall, Ellis
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Oakley, T.
Waddington, R.


Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Pease, William Edwin
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Pennefather, Sir John
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Hurd, Percy A.
Penny, Frederick George
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Hurst, Gerald B.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Watts, Dr. T.


Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wells, S. R.


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Pielou, D. P.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Jacob, A. E.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Jephcott, A. R.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Radford, E. A.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Raine, W.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Ramsden, E.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Rawson, Alfred Cooper
Wise, Sir Fredric


Knox, Sir Alfred
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Lamb, J. Q.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Rentoul, G. S.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.



Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Rice, Sir Frederick
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Loder, J. de V.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain




Margesson.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Connolly, M.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Cove, W. G.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hardie, George D.


Ammon, Charles George
Crawfurd, H. E.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Attlee, Clement Richard
Dalton, Hugh
Hayday, Arthur


Baker, Walter
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Hayes, John Henry


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Barr, J.
Day, Colonel Harry
Hirst, G. H.


Batey, Joseph
Dennison, R.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Briant, Frank
Fenby, T. D.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)


Broad, F. A.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Gibbins, Joseph
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Buchanan, G.
Gillett, George M.
Kelly, W. T.


Cape, Thomas
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lansbury, George


Charleton, H. C.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lawson, John James


Clowes, S.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lee, F.


Cluse, W. S.
Groves, T.
Livingstone, A. M.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Grundy, T. W.
Lowth, T.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Lunn, William


Compton, Joseph
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)




Mackinder, W.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Wallhead, Richard C.


MacLaren, Andrew
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


March, S.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Sitch, Charles H.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Montague, Frederick
Smillie, Robert
Weir, L. M.


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Welsh, J. C.


Naylor, T. E.
Snell, Harry
Westwood, J.


Oliver, George Harold
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Palin, John Henry
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles
Whiteley, W.


Paling, W.
Stamford, T. W.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Ponsonby, Arthur
Stephen, Campbell
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Potts, John S.
Sutton, J. E.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Taylor, R. A.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Riley, Ben
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.)
Windsor, Walter


Rose, Frank H.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Wright, W.


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Thurtle, E.
Young, E. Hilton (Norwich)


Scrymgeour, E.
Tinker, John Joseph



Scurr, John
Townend, A. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Sexton, James
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. T.


Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Viant, S. P.
Kennedy.

The CHAIRMAN: I have received a manuscript Amendment to leave out Subsection (2). The same point has already been taken up by an Amendment on the Paper to the Schedule, and I find that the Government Department concerned has had no notice that it would come on at this earlier stage. I feel bound therefore to call it on the Schedule.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 (Amending enactments) and 4 (Short title and application to Ireland) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — FIRST SCHEDULE.

Sir CYRIL COBB: I beg to move in page 3, column 3, lines 16 and 17, to leave out the words "Sections seven and" and to insert instead thereof the word "section."
This Amendment deals with the question of the expenditure of the Metropolitan Asylums Board. It is designed to retain, if possible, the temporary character of Section 7 of the Local Government (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1916, at least for a year. I am quite content with a year. Under the 1867 Act, which regulated this question part of the expenditure of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, which was known as Common Charges, fell proportionately to the rateable value. There was another part called the Direct Charges. This also fell upon the various Poor Law unions, not in proportion to their rateable value but in accordance with the number of inmates any particular union had in its institution. There was a further Section which provided that the whole of these direct charges, with a certain proportion of the common charges as well, should be
subsequently charged to the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund and a special provision was put in the Act of 1867, Clause 66, that a precept should issue to the Treasurer of the Inns of Court from the President of the Local Government Hoard, as it was then, to the Poor Law Board for the amount prescribed. Now comes the point I want to make. Under the Act of 1916, Section 7, with which we are dealing now, there was a provision that none of the expenses of the Metropolitan Asylums Board should be repayable out of the Common Poor Fund. The effect of that Section was that the Inns of Court, to the extent of the amount of their contribution, which would have come under normal circumstances under the Act of 1867 out of the Common Poor Fund by that special regulation in Section 66, were cut off altogether and had nothing to pay. The point was raised when the 1916 Act was before the House, and at that time the London County Council took exception to the Inns of Court being let off this contribution and the President of the Local Government Board at that time, Mr. Hayes Fisher, in alluding to the matter drew attention to the fact that the whole object of the Act of 1916 was to further administrative economy in the department of the Local Government Board. We must all agree that for any Government Department to effect administrative economy is all to the good. Mr. Hayes Fisher said:
Undoubtedly … this new arrangement will probably give such satisfaction, doing away as it does with almost endless clerical labour."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th April, 1916, col. 1705, Vol. 81.]
He went on to say it would be necessary to take into consideration, if the Act was ever made permanent when the war was over, the position of the Inns of Court,
and possibly some such provision would have to be made, but he did not think it would be advisable to insert a provision in that Bill. He there gave not exactly an undertaking, but something in the nature of a promise, that if the Act was ever made permanent, as is now the intention of the Government, this question of the exemption of the Inns of Court from their proper contribution should be considered and should be put right. All I am asking for to-day is that this matter shall be put right now, or rather that we shall have a year's grace in order to see whether it cannot be solved in an equitable way in regard to the other contributors. If the Inns of Court get off their contribution, however small it may be, it falls in proportion upon the other contributors to the Poor Law Fund. I suggest that we should have an opportunity during the coming year of arranging this matter with the Inns of Court, We understand that they are ready and willing to make payment. As to what the actual payment should be, that has not yet been decided. We are not altogether at one with the Inns of Court on the matter. I am sure that, given time, we shall be able to arrange a satisfactory basis. That being so, and also bearing in mind that we are going to consider the whole question of the administration of the Poor Law in the county of London and elsewhere, it is very much better that this difficulty, even though a small one, should be got out of the way, and that we should therefore ask for a year in order to do this. I am moving the omission of this Section from the Schedule so as to ensure that it shall be only temporary and that it is not made permanent by this time next year, by which time I hope we shall arrive at a proper solution.

Mr. SCURR: I want to support the appeal of the hon. Member opposite, as the view he has expressed has the unanimous support of all parties in the London County Council. There is another reason why the Act should only be continued for another year and that is the whole position of the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund itself. During the last few years very considerable alterations have been made in the incidence of that fund. Before 1914 the total charges falling on the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund
were something over £2,200,000. Of that sum practically £1,100,000 was borne locally. To-day the charges on the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund amount to something over £7,000,000. The charge borne locally is £1,200,000. The incidence of the localities has practically not varied at all, but the incidence of the whole of London has varied considerably, and that is of very great importance to the poor boroughs of London which have to face great problems due to unemployment. They are only continued by a temporary Act. It has been a matter of keen controversy whether they should be extended for a year or a couple of years. Anyone who has any responsibility at all in the administration of affairs in the County of London knows that either the present arrangement, or something like it, will have to continue and be made permanent, and that is another reason in support of the Amendment.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I am sure the Committee has heard with sympathy the appeal that has been made from both sides of the Committee and I should be willing to accede to it. Apart from this one question—and it is a very small question—arising in connection with the Inns of Court, everyone who has to do with administration in London agrees with the suggestion that it is very essential that this matter should be put on a permanent basis in the interests of economy and good administration. Why I am consenting to this matter going out of what I may call the permanent part of the Bill and being inserted in the Schedule which continues it for another year is to enable the county council to come to some arrangement with the Inns of Court which will facilitate those negotiations which, I understand, are now taking place. The Committee that sat under the chairmanship of the hon. Gentleman behind me recommended that this should form a permanent part of the Statute law of the country. There fore I hope it will be clearly understood by the representatives of the county council that then it is the intention of the Department to press for the matter being put permanently on the Statute Book next year. We are anxious to facilitate the discussions that are taking place and therefore I assent to the suggestion that has been made. I have no doubt my hon.
Friend will move the further Amendment by which it will be placed in the other Schedule of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SECOND SCHEDULE.

Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: I beg to move, in page 5, to leave out lines 19 to 25.
I move this Amendment, not with a desire to embarrass the Government in any way, but merely to ask exactly why the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1914, is being continued in view of the fact that the Committee over which I presided has recommended that it should be discontinued. A footnote on page vi of the Report says:
This Act, your Committee understand, is no longer required and will consequently be dropped.
There is a reference to Question 134, which I put myself:
This Act has been continued only so far as it relates to Orders made by any Court before 31st August, 1922. The Lord Chancellor's Department considers further continuance unnecessary and the Scottish Office concurs. Have you anything to say on that. Mr. Ram?
He replies, "No." Then I say:
Then this Act will lapse if everybody agrees.
And we recommended that it should be discontinued. It is not, however, to be discontinued now, but is to be continued for one year. I should like to ask why this action has been taken in contradistinction to the advice of the Committee over which I presided.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): I am glad to have the opportunity of answering my hon. Friend. The Courts (Emergency Powers) Act was passed during the War and it prevented the enforcement of judgments and other claims without the leave of the Court. It has lapsed, so far as the power to make orders under it is concerned, since 31st August, 1922, but there were made under it during the years when it was in force a number of orders under which execution and the enforcement of claims was stayed so long as certain instalments were kept up, which in some cases were to run for a number of years. In some cases those orders have not yet worked
themselves out, and it would be a hardship if, by bringing the Act altogether to an end, we enabled creditors and others immediately to enforce those claims without any further leave from the Court. There are a number of orders which have to run for several years, and it is necessary and desirable that the Act should be continued for another year. My hon. Friend will realise, as no doubt the Committee will, that this is the only step in which we have departed in any way from the recommendations of his Committee, and that in itself is an indication of the care and skill with which they performed their functions.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In page 5, column 3, line 32, after the word "six," insert the word "seven."—[Sir C. Cobb.]

Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELS: I beg to move, in page 6, to leave out lines 5 to 9 inclusive.
This Amendment refers to the Statutory Undertakings (Temporary Increase of Charges) Act, 1918, so far as it relates to tramway undertakings. This is an Act-which since the War has permitted tramway undertakings to charge a higher fare than they were previously legally entitled to do. That is done by means of an Order from the Minister of Transport which runs for one year and may be renewed by him. I am not proposing to carry this matter to the extreme length of suggesting the entire abolition of this Act or permitting it to lapse. I think we should be very glad to see this power for the increase of tramway charges being done away with, but the Minister of Transport may be aware of cases where this would involve hardship on certain undertakings. I am anxious to have an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary on an administrative point. It is obvious that the Minister of Transport is not able to decide the merits of these cases himself. because in many instances there are technical considerations involved. Therefore, an Advisory Committee has been set up which considers applications for the granting of Orders and advises the Minister, and on those recommendations Orders are made.
My point is that local authorities and others interested in the question of whether these higher rates should be maintained have not a right of entry to
this Advisory Committee. In the case in which I am particularly interested, that of the Musselburgh District Tramways, in the County of Midlothian, we have a state of affairs where, when this Order was granted empowering the charging of higher fares the company had to make its own electricity at a very high cost. Its other expenses were also very high. Since then the tramway line has become continuous with the Edinburgh Tramways and there are running powers in both directions. The current is supplied from the Edinburgh power station and the old station has been done away with, so that the cost for power has been enormously reduced in the case of this company. The Musselburgh Town Council and other adjacent town councils have petitioned for some years to have the Order in their case revoked, without effect. Last year they sent up a very special petition claiming that, before any Order was granted for another year, the local authorities should be heard by the Advisory Committee, but the Advisory Committee in the exercise of its discretion decided that it was unnecessary to hear the local authorities and the Order was renewed for another year. I wish to be assured that that will not happen again.
This Advisory Committee is non-representative, it reports to the Minister, and it is extremely difficult for the Minister to turn down a decision of the Committee, seeing that it is largely based on technical considerations. As their outlook is somewhat narrow and as they are not familiar, or may not be familiar— certainly they were not familiar in this case—with the locality involved, it is extremely important that local authorities should have access to the Committee and be able to put the particular local considerations which might influence the decision of the Committee. It is not possible to amend the Act so to make that necessary, because we must either continue the Act as it is or drop it. I am anxious that this omission, having been brought to the attention of the Ministry, the Parliamentary Secretary will give me an assurance that the blank will be filled up by administrative action and that the Advisory Committee will be informed that when local authorities put forward a request for public inquiry and that they desire to be heard through their repre-
sentatives, their request should be acceded to as a matter of course before any such Order is given. I should be very glad is the Parliamentary Secretary can give me an assurance in that direction.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon): I am obliged to my hon. Friend for not pressing for the repeal of the whole Act, and confining his remarks to the Musselburgh case, because to repeal the whole Act would be a hardship on many tramway undertakings, and in most cases undertakings run by municipalities. I admit that the machinery is somewhat cumbrous. The Committee set up by the Minister consists of the chairman of the Light Railway Commission, a representative of labour, and two tramway representatives, one representing municipally-run tramways and the other representing private-owned tramways. The Minister has to refer to the Committee all these questions as to increase in fares. Any order which the Minister makes for an increase in fares only applies for one year and after the expiration of the year the question of the increase of fares has to be reconsidered by the Committee and another Order issued.
In this case my hon. Friend is dealing with Musselburgh. I see that the Musselburgh Council have already lodged a petition on the question of the increase of fares. Therefore, automatically, the whole question will be considered by the Committee. What I cannot do—I should like to do it if I could—is to give an undertaking which requires that there should be a public inquiry. The Minister has not the power to give directions in that respect or to question the discretion of the Committee. I can assure my hon. Friend that this matter will be looked into very seriously, and in view of the fact that it has been raised by him and that he has almost introduced a Debate on the question, I am certain that the Committee will give the views which ho has expressed more consideration this year than on previous occasions.

Dr. SHIELS: I do not ask for a specific form by which public authorities may be heard. I suggested that a public inquiry is one method, but there may be other means of access to the committee I press very strongly that it is possible by administrative action to see that this
advisory committee is not able to refuse to hear the representatives of local authorities in regard to any order which they are considering.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask how far this Act is really still operative? When we passed the Act in 1918 to give these statutory undertakings the possibility of raising fares they were then monopolies. I think the Act applied to gas and electric light undertakings as well as tramways, nowadays with all the competition which the ordinary tramway has to meet from motor-buses, I should have thought that that competition has acted as a corrective and has taken away any necessity for the use of this Act or for applications under it to get higher fares. Can the tramway companies still afford to raise their fares in the face of this competition, or is the Act becoming more and more a dead letter owing to the fact that this competition automatically prevents any increase in fares or any appliation being made under the Act?

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: That opens up a big question. There are about 45 orders at the present time which allow increases of fare. Those orders lapse every year and they have to be renewed every year. As to whether it pays a tramway company to increase their fares and try to get dividends that way or to keep their fares low and try to get more traffic in that way, it is a matter of policy for the actual undertakers. When it comes to a struggle between motor omnibuses and trams it is very hard for the trams, which are not mobile, to carry on especially as the tramways under an old undertaking when horses pulled trams, have to keep the middle of the roads in repair. That is a very great hardship to the trams throughout the country, because in regard to damage done to the middle of the track, the upkeep of which falls upon the tramway undertaking, the motor omnibuses damage not only the sides of the road but the middle of the road between the tramway rails as well.

Dr. SHIELS: May I ask for a reply to my question?

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: In answer to the specific point which the hon. Member raises I can only say that I cannot change the Act. What he wishes me to do is to proceed administratively
and to see that someone directly interested should be, represented at the inquiry.

Dr. SHIELS: The Parliamentary Secretary has misunderstood me. I do not want to alter the Advisory Committee in any way. I am quite satisfied with the constitution of the Committee, but I do not want the Advisory Committee to have the power, when it thinks fit, to refuse to hear representatives from local authorities who may have perfectly legitimate claims to place before the Committee in regard to any particular order. Is it not possible by administrative Act to see that the Advisory Committee is informed that representations from local authorities, whether written or by speech or by public inquiry or any other method, should be heard, or should be received in the form which the local authority desires?

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: If that is possible administratively, I should be glad to do it and to make inquiries.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. SCURR: I beg to move, in page 6, to leave out lines 20 to 22 inclusive.
I am glad that the Home Secretary is present, because I know he takes a personal interest in this matter. The object of the Amendment is to enable me to make the same protest that I made last year against special legislation dealing with aliens. There are two reasons why this Act ought to come off the Statute Book. First of all, it is war legislation, and we are now some years after the War. We are supposed to bo at peace. Whatever necessities may have been alleged for passing the Act, they have all gone by. I stand to-day as firmly as ever I did for the right of free asylum in this country. One of the greatest glories to which the British people can lay claim is that they have been at all times, until comparatively recently, prepared to allow men and women of all nations and of all classes and creeds and all political opinions to enter their country without let or hindrance. The result of that policy has been good.
May I illustrate it by a personal matter? On Sunday in the Borough of Stepney I attended the Mayoral service, in the Catholic Church, of the Mayor of that borough, who happens to be an Irishman and a Catholic. Years ago the
race to which he belonged, and he and his friends, were regarded with contempt because they were born in, and had to fly from Ireland because of political reasons, to this country, and yet such was the great principle which the British people at that time observed that, in spite of the fact that it was the British Government which was responsible for the political incident which led to these Irishmen having to leave Ireland, they were able to come to England, Scotland and Wales and to have a free asylum there. To-day we have reversed that policy.
For my part I regard this question as being very much against one particular section of the community, that is the members, and particularly the poorer members, of the Jewish community. So far as the East End of London is concerned wherever we have an alien population the overwhelming mass of that population belong to the Jewish faith, or Jewish race, and there are hundreds of cases in this country at the present time of people who are only technically aliens. Only this morning I received a letter in regard to one young man who has committed a technical offence recently in not registering as an alien. Some five or six years ago he had a conviction against him for larceny, but he has since that time lived an absolutely proper life and he has been a good citizen, yet he is liable now to deportation. He has committed another offence, though it is technical. That young man was brought to this country when he was two years old. He is unable to speak any other language but English, and if he is deported, as he might be and could be quite legally, to Poland, which is the country of his birth, he would be in every sense of the word a stranger there. These are the things which are happening under this legislation.
The overwhelming mass of these Jewish residents in the East End of London are in every sense of the word good citizens. They have brought to the East End of London industry which otherwise would not be there. Many of them are very considerable ratepayers, and if you read the reports of the education authorities, or any other authorities which deal with this community, you will find that all the time they are telling you what good citizens these people are. It seems to me
that the time has now come when the Home Secretary ought to give up this idea of thinking that he is simply the saviour of the nation by means of the operation of Acts of this kind in keeping out one or two individuals here or there. The whole policy in regard to the whole question of aliens is, I think, wrong. I would urge that, though in time of specific unemployment there may be reasons for saying that there should be prohibition of the right of entry into this country, yet there should not be any question of the Home Office putting it into force, but that it should be a thing to be determined exclusively by the Minister of Labour, and that it should be determined entirely by labour conditions.
Last year the Home Secretary said that he wanted this power for the purpose of dealing with the Chinese, for example, who were selling dope in this country, and that that was the only way in which he could deal with that matter. I wish to suggest a further way of dealing with it. I think that, if we are responsible, as we are largely, for the Government of India, if the people there had given up the growing of opium in that country, and the Government did not allow it to be exported to China and elsewhere, the Chinese would not have got into the bad habits, into which some of those who come here are supposed to have got, of supplying dope and cocaine and things of that kind to people of this country. But after all we do not usually find that it is members of the working classes who indulge in this cocaine habit. We generally find that it is people at the other end of the social scale, who by reason of defects in their education, or through having too much leisure or too much money or something of that kind, resort to the cocaine habit, and if their schools and colleges where they are taught were to give them some lessons in regard to self control it would be a great deal better, I think, than merely to deport an odd Chinese here and there.
This legislation is wrong legislation from beginning to end. It hits a particular community, a community which is serving us well. This Bill is wrong all the way through. In regard to alien immigration, when the immigrants come into the country, instead of all the rigmarole which they have to go through now after many years in order to try to get naturalised, and then simply having
the applications filed away among the records of the Home Office, they should have to be naturalised after 12 months, and if they were not fit to foe naturalised they should have to leave. These people are doing all they can to be good citizens of this country at present, but they are unable to obtain the advantages of citizenship because of these Acts of Parliament. In my judgment, the sooner you get rid of this legislation the better for the good name of this country.

Mr. FINBURGH: I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr), more particularly to that portion of his remarks in which he called attention to the race to which I have the honour to belong, and I should be lacking in my duty if I were not to express my opinion, and the opinion of the community to which I belong, in reference to the question under discussion. I believe that it is a wrong policy on the part of the Government to continue the restrictions which exist at present. They were introduced especially for the needs of the War, and we all of course agreeing that they were then a necessity, but those days have passed. It is seven years since the Armistice was signed, and there were four years during the duration of the War, and my opinion is that to have those who have resided in this country perhaps five or ten or fifteen or twenty years prior to the outbreak of the War, making perhaps a total period of 20 years residence as peaceful, law-abiding, hard working citizens of the country, still subject to those restrictions is an injustice. I am a great believer in the old book and in the principle that righteousness exalteth the nation. On Sunday morning I had the privilege of attending Sacred Trinity Church in company with the Mayor of my borough, North Salford. The first lesson of the day to which I had the privilege of listening was delivered by our learned stipendiary. It was the prayer of King Solomon. He finishes up the prayer by praying for the stranger within his gates, and I should have thought it would be a most instructive lesson if some of our legislators, like the Home Secretary perhaps, could have been there to listen to that portion of Biblical writ dealing with the question with which we are concerned.
I made inquiries a few days ago and ascertained the only fault which could be
alleged against these long residents, these lawful citizens who have not had the foresight to become naturalised previous to the War. They did not know that it was necessary or they would have done so. They have been trying ever since, and every possible restriction has been placed upon them. I do not know for what reason. Perhaps at some future time I may have the privilege of investigating the delay which has taken place in removing these restrictions, but a few days ago I made it my business to inquire and I ascertained for myself that if any resident, however long he may have been in a place, happens to change his address merely from one number in a street to another number in the same street and does not report such removal to the police, he can be brought up before the nearest magistrate for a breach of the law. I call that an absolute abomination. We have to administer justice, and of course while the law stands it must be obeyed, but it is a vicious law and a pernicious law and it is an injustice. We only want what is right and fair and reasonable in all respects.
I know that perhaps the Home Secretary will try to make some reply to the effect that he could not admit aliens in the present state of unemployment. I agree cordially with that. It is impossible at this juncture. Seeing that we have one and a-quarter millions of our own people unemployed, it would be a sin and a scandal to admit anyone for the time being, but I hope that, when unemployment has decreased, we may reconsider the whole question. I should like to say one word on another matter. We know very well that admitting or opening the doors to aliens is out of the question at present, but we are concerned this afternoon with those who have been residents here for so many years. I am concerned with those people who have given their sons, who have paid the great sacrifice, and where such parents are under these restrictions it is time that such restrictions should be removed. I hope that the Home Secretary will see the justice of the claim which I am making. These walls have often resounded to speeches in which freedom was demanded, not as a right perhaps but as a privilege. I take the opportunity this afternoon of appealing to the Home Secretary to remove these restrictions.
They are a paradox. They are a disgrace to our Constitution and our freedom and I hope that he will see his way to do what I have asked.

5.0 P.M.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I have listened with some surprise to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for North Salford (Mr. Fin-burgh). He did me the honour some time ago to come and see me and discuss the whole of this subject with me. I made to him certain suggestions, which he seems to have forgotten. His co-religionists have done me the greater honour of coming to see me more than once as deputations, and I have been in the closest touch with some of the leaders of his religious body on the question of the naturalisation of aliens. I understand from my hon. Friend that he agrees with the policy of the Government, that while we have more than a million unemployed here we should keep out aliens who desire to come into this country. As to that, I do not think he will receive the applause which hon. Members opposite appeared anxious to give him at the beginning of his speech. My hon. Friend is in a difficulty about the naturalisation of those members of his community who were here before the War, those who have been resident here for 50 years, some of whom have given their sons to fight for England in the War. [HON. MEMBERS: "England!"] I should have said for Britain, for the nation and the Empire. I gather that my hon. Friend feels that I am behaving harshly in regard to those men. In fact, he made the serious statement that every possible restriction is placed on the naturalisation of such men.
I am sorry to have to say it to a member of my own party, but that is not true; quite definitely it, is not true. So long as a man has been in this country, certainly for anything like 20 years, and so long as he has shown himself desirous of becoming a member of the British community, certainly so long as he has given sons to fight for the community and the nation, I not only place no restriction on his becoming naturalised as a citizen of this country, but, if I can be convinced by any means that that man is in heart and soul desirous of becoming a member
of our community, if he appreciates the great honour of becoming a British citizen, I not only place no restriction upon him, but I welcome his admission to citizenship. I am signing every morning a large number of naturalisation papers, and many of them belong to my hon. Friend's community. I think it was a little unkind for a member of my own party to have made an attack of that kind without at least doing me the honour of coming to the Home Office and finding out what is really the position there.

Mr. FINBURGH: I hope to do so.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is all very well for my hon. Friend to say that, he hopes to do so. He might have done so before launching his attack to-day. I challenge him, and I challenge the whole of his community, to give me a single instance in which there has been any anti-Jewish, anti-Semitic bias, on the part of the Home Office officials or the Home Secretary. I have said as much before, and the hon. Member ought to have known it. His colleagues, the leaders of the Jewish community know it quite well. If the hon. Member can give me a single instance in which naturalisation has been refused to such a man who has applied for naturalisation papers, I will personally go into it, and—

Mr. FINBURGH: I accept the challenge, and will supply the right hon. Gentleman with the information.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Gentleman accepts the challenge, and I have nothing more to say. It is now for him to give me the details.

Mr. STEPHEN: Will you resign if he is right?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Certainly; he has accepted the challenge, and it is new for him to produce the evidence on which he has based his statement. Now I come to the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr), who moved what I might call his hardy annual. He has moved the elimination of the Aliens Act from the Schedule of the Bill, and I assume that if he got his way there would be no further alien restrictions of any kind; aliens would all be admitted, good, bad and indifferent, and we should have, from the East of Europe, that flood of aliens
which is kept out only by our existing restrictions.

Mr. FINBURGH: I thought I made myself perfectly clear on that point.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have done with my hon. Friend. I am dealing now with my hon. opponent opposite, the hon. Member for Mile End. He made to-day the case which he made last year. I think I have heard him before make a speech in regard to the position here 30 and 40 years ago, when England was a refuge for the downcast and oppressed of all nations—a magnificent position to take up, and one which we were well able to take up 40 years ago. I am not one of those who are opposed to that position, when we can afford to take it up. But then we had not over a million unemployed in this country. Even my hon. Friend the Member for North Salford would not let them come in now. I appeal to the House. Are we to sweep away the whole of the restrictions, to throw the door open wide, and to let every alien come in. That is surely not the position which this House desires to take up, with so large a number of unemployed still in our midst. The hon. Member for Mile End referred with great eloquence to his Irish friends, and to their admission to this country at a time when there was political difficulty in Ireland. They were allowed in those days to come into Great Britain. So they are allowed to-day to come into Great Britain, and the hon. Member's eloquence was really wasted. His friends from Ireland are British subjects, and they can come in. Our doors are not closed to a single British subject. The Irish malcontents can come here in the same way as a Scotsman, an Australian, or any other man from the Dominions.

Mr. HARDIE: Why mention a Scotsman?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I thought I was paying a compliment to Scotsmen.

Mr. HARDIE: We come here to run your country.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: There is one place you cannot always run, and that is the House of Commons. There are still a few Englishmen left here. I do not want to treat harshly my hon. Friends from Scotland. Seriously, I ask the Com-
mittee to consider this question. Let me explain the position. We allow to come into this country everybody who fulfils certain simple conditions. There are 300,000 aliens who come in every year, on business or on pleasure and who contribute to the well-being of the country by their coming. They come in for a limited period, and they go out at the end of it. No alien is permitted to come in for the purpose of doing work which would otherwise be done by an Englishman, without the definite concurrence of the Minister of Labour. That is not in my hands. Any alien who desires to carry out work here, must first obtain the consent of the Minister of Labour. That Minister's permission has to be brought to my Department, and, other things being equal, the alien can come in. But even then the Alien Immigration Department have the right to keep him out if he is otherwise undesirable.
There is a very large number of aliens who attempt to get in, but who are quite definitely undesirable in various ways which I need not mention. Those we still keep out. I have been down to our ports and I have personally seen the work of the alien immigration officers. I have seen the way in which they carry out the examination of the aliens before they are allowed to come in. Even a man who is coming here for business purposes, with his passport in order and the proper visa, is asked for proof that he is really coming for business purposes. He may reply, "I am going to deal with certain things in Manchester or Birmingham." He is then asked, ''Have you any letters to prove it, any kind of information to justify your statement?" Most of them have such justification. If they have not, they are put back in order that they may find some guarantee. A statement that a man wishes to enter this country for business purposes cannot be made successfully without some foundation. The hon. Member went further, in order to attack me on the question of the Chinese. I think he made a very unfair remark about the class of the community who use cocaine. I can tell him where most of the cocaine is used. It is in the East End of London, most of it.

Mr. HARDIE: That is where they go to get it.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No. I have during the last few months deported several Chinese who were convicted of being engaged in the traffic, not in the West End, but in the East End of London. I am not blaming the East End; I am replying to the very unfair statement of the hon. Member. As long as the House of Commons entrusts me with these powers, I shall continue to deport undesirable aliens, and I am sure that I shall have the approval, not merely of the House, but of the country in so doing. I have from time to time during the past year deported aliens belonging to another country, a friendly country on the continent of Europe, who were engaged, not in the cocaine traffic, but in another very unpleasant traffic, the traffic of prostitution. Those are undesirable aliens. I am certain that the hon. Member, with all his love of freedom, would admit that it is desirable to have some power somewhere to get rid of that class of men.
Perhaps the Committee would like to know that during the 10 months of this year, up to 31st October, I have issued deportation orders in 219 cases. Nearly all of them have been cases where aliens have been convicted of some form of crime, and where the magistrates have recommended deportation. In those cases, however, I still have the responsibility of considering whether it is desirable to carry out a deportation, and every single case comes before me for my personal consideration and decision. In addition to that, there is a very large number of aliens who want to come here and who are stopped by the net of alien immigration officers placed around this country under the provisions of the Act. Everybody who wants to come in from certain foreign countries has to get a visa from our Consuls in addition to a passport. Consuls may sometimes give visas in undesirable cases. In thousands of cases they refuse visas. Numbers of men seek visas which are refused on the spot. In the 10 months of this year the officers of the Immigration Department have refused admission to 2,066 people, some of whom had obtained visas in some way or other. The people have gone through that rigid examination. Immigration officers have put before themselves the one question, "Is the admission of this alien desirable in the interests of this country,
or not?", and if it is not desirable, the aliens have been returned to their own country.
The administration is not popular, but it is carried out as kindly as is possible. I have had conferences with the officers of the Immigration Department, and I have explained to them the desire of this House as to the methods by which the Act should be carried out. I have expressed to them my own view, and that of the House of Commons, that they should welcome any who are coming here in the interest of the country, and that in all eases they should act with as much kindness and courtesy as possible. I propose to tell the Committee—as a contrast to the speech of the hon. Member opposite—of two cases which have come under my notice within the last two days. One is the case of an American girl who arrived here a few weeks ago from Germany, where she had been in work. She came absolutely destitute, and had no work to go to here. An immigration officer, without reward and without being mentioned in the newspapers, got his wife to take this girl into his own house, and there she was taken care of until arrangements could be made for her journey home. At this very moment there is a Mexican girl who arrived destitute from Australia in the care of the Immigration Department, and I hope to be able to arrange in the course of a day or two that she shall be sent back to her home. That is the way in which, without any public notice, the officers of my Department are trying to carry out their very difficult task, and they are carrying it out in the belief that they have the confidence of the House of Commons behind them. The House passed this Act of Parliament; the House is responsible for it, and I am perfectly certain, in spite of the speech of the hon. Member opposite, that in the present circumstances, and considering the number of unemployed in our midst, it is quite impossible, more particularly in the interests of the working community of this country, that we should relax this Act of Parliament, and allow the door to be thrown wide open once more to a stream of aliens of every kind.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I desire to associate myself with the Amendment, for two additional and sound reasons. I feel
it is lamentable there should be internal dissension on the other side of the House. I feel that the criticism of the Home Secretary by the hon. Member for North Salford (Mr. Finburgh) is one of those unfortunate incidents which we do not wish to have repeated. Moreover, I feel that the unkind criticism of the Home Secretary has soured the right hon. Gentleman's otherwise sweet good nature. The right hon. Gentleman now resents the accusation of anti-Semitism as though it were an accusation of Bolshevism. It has got on his nerves. Not merely in this House, but in the public-Press, we see this horrible charge resented with indignation. Now we want to make the situation easier for the right hon. Gentleman. We think that if this Aliens Restriction Act were no longer a part of the law of the land the Homo Secretary would have an easier conscience as well as an easier time, and therefore, for this additional reason, we suggest that it should no longer sully the Statute Book.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that this country is a compound of all the races on earth. He himself is hyphenated and we are all hyphenated. We are all of hundreds—or, at any rate, dozens—of mixed races. There is not one single Member of this House who has not the blood of half a dozen different races who came into this country as immigrants at one period or another. Look at the result! Could one suppose anything more perfect? Seriously, the right hon. Gentleman knows that the position of this country up to about 40 years ago involved us in accepting and assimilating immigrants from all other countries. It is true the Jews were prevented from coming in for about 400 years, but I do not think we have any reason to complain of the Jewish influx since the seventeenth century. Everybody knows the enormous advantage to this country of the immigration of the Huguenots, who brought in so many new forms of production. We have imported into this country more of the Irish than of any other nation or race on earth, and the Irish element in our population is one of the most valuable elements in the British character. Now the right hon. Gentleman comes forward with the argument that in future we must adopt a new principle and shut the doors and forbid all these alien, "dago," inferior races to come in. I prefer the old
Liberal traditions. I am a thoroughgoing Conservative so far as this matter is concerned. I believe what was good enough for our ancestors in this respect should be good enough for us.
The argument used against this immigration is the narrow nationalist argument, and we on these benches are, fundamentally, believers in the international spirit. We wish to see the workers of the world united, not merely in name, but in aspirations and in general cooperation. I cannot understand how people who are essentially Christian, such as the right hon. Gentleman, can tolerate these invidious distinctions, which he knows are contrary to the Christian religion as well as to the Socialist religion. It is pitiful that he of all men should come forward now as the protagonist of a racial segregation and a pride wholly alien, as I say, both to the Christian religion and the Socialist creed. I know that he and many other people base themselves upon the idea that at the present time, whilst unemployment is so rife in this country, it would be ridiculous to allow foreigners to come in. If that be so, why not apply the principle thoroughly and keep out the Irish or the Scottish? Why allow anybody to come in? If your principle is that as long as there is unemployment, nobody should be allowed into the area where the unemployment exists, you may as well scrap the railways of the country and prevent any migration whatever. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Where are you to draw the line? If it is good to keep out the Americans, is it not equally good to keep out the Irishmen? If it is good to keep out the Germans, is it not equally good to keep out people from Scotland?
As a matter of fact, the best answer to the modern creed that unemployment can be solved by checking the free flow of population from one country to another, is that the immigrants who come into this country are not merely prospective producers but prospective consumers also. Are we here in the House of Commons, in the year 1925, believers in the idea that there is only just a limited amount of work to be done and that it must be shared out among the workers of the community? If that is your faith, if you believe there is only a certain definite amount of production required in the country, then I say the people who believe
in the "ca' canny" principle are perfectly justified in trying to share out that limited amount among all the people available to do the work. But the right hon. Gentleman knows and the House knows that there is not merely a limited amount of work to be done, but an unlimited demand for the results of work, if you could get those results to the people who need them. There is an unlimited demand for production if only we were allowed to produce. It is because we know that there is work required which can be done in this country, and that people want goods, that we believe it advisable to get into this country the maximum number of workers provided we can see that those workers, on coming into this country, are allowed to produce the goods we all want to consume. I dare not go into the whole problem of unemployment to-day—it would not be in order —but I beg of hon. Members to recall the famous reply of Malthus. You are all Malthusians if you really believe you can benefit this country by keeping able-bodied immigrants out of the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I daresay many of you are Malthusians. You do believe—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is giving a very wide extension to the Debate.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am trying to deal with what I believe to be the vital point involved in this particular question, namely, are we justified in trying to improve our trade and employment in this country by keeping other people out? I submit that that is the key question in the consideration of this matter. Malthus's doctrine was that as the population increased the means of subsistence would grow less and, therefore, it was desirable to curtail population and to restrict the production of babies.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that there was also a proposal, brought before the Jacobin tribunal but not acted upon, to reduce the population of France by the assassination of every third person. If it were in order on this question to introduce the one proposal, it would be equally in order to introduce the other. I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman must keep more closely to the aliens questions.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I have been trying to address myself to that question and it seems to me that my arguments have been so cogent and so much to the point that the only reply has been a sort of jeering from the hon. Members opposite. I was trying to point out that increase in population is an advantage and not a disadvantage to a country. The real difference between us and hon. Members opposite is that we believe that men should be allowed to produce the goods which they can produce. As long as you allow the present position of affairs to remain in regard to the land of this country from which all production must come; as long as you restrict the opportunities of producing goods and make it possible that people shall be out of work when they want work; as long as aliens who want to come into this country to work are kept out, so long shall we get cases such as the right hon. Gentleman mentioned of unfortunate stranded girls coming into this country, girls who will not be so lucky as those he mentioned. Countless numbers of stranded people who try to find an asylum in England now are kept out by our bad laws, and their case is rendered more desperate to-day than it was 30 years ago, by reason of the growth of this theory that we must preserve our own country for our own race, instead of adopting the far higher conception for the human race that we are one brotherhood and that we should help and love one another.

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIRMAN: The next two Amendments, in the name of the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) and other hon. Members, in page 6, line 24, column 3, to leave out the word "and," and in page 6, line 25, column 3, after the word "two," to insert the words "and eighteen" are unnecessary. They propose to continue something that is already permanent, and, therefore, they will have no effect. With regard to the next Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Westbury (Captain Walter Shaw), in page 7, line 6, column 3, after the word "Act," to insert the words "except the exemptions contained in Schedule 1, Part 1, paragraph 4," I have had very great difficulty. It proposes to allow the continuance of the Act, but that certain
exemptions from it should lapse. On going into this matter, I have come to the conclusion that these exceptions are part of a provision that must be kept or left as a whole, and that it would not be in order to amend it. Therefore, I am bound to rule that that is not in order.

Captain W. SHAW: On the point of Order. I understood you, Sir, would allow me to move this, and to make my appeal to the Home Secretary that he would allow me to have this small Amendment. I think, if I put it in the way I want, it might be allowed, as I know there are a great many in my division who are very anxious to have this Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: There is no doubt that it is a case of considerable difficulty, but the question as to whether the Home Secretary will allow it or not is not one that I can consider. This is a proposal, really, not to continue the law as it stands or to allow an expiring provision to lapse; it is really to change a provision as it at present exists, and I have come to my conclusion after a good deal of reflection. When the hon. and gallant Member used his arguments to me in private, I said I was prepared favourably to consider them, but, on the whole, I have had to come to the other conclusion.

Captain SHAW: May I point out, as I pointed out to you, that the exemptions in question under the 1920 Shops Act are not allowed to be sold? All that I ask is that that part of the Act applying to tobacco and sweetmeats shall not be continued.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid, on looking into the Order under the Schedule, that I must take the Order as a whole. If I were to allow this Amendment, the law in any Expiring Laws Continuance Bill might be almost indefinitely amended. We must either take or leave the provision as a whole.

Captain SHAW: May I move to delete this Section as a whole?

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid it is not possible. The next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for East
Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson), in Schedule 2, page 7, to leave out lines 23 to 29 inclusive, has been disposed of. In regard to the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) and others, in Schedule 2, page 7, line 23, at the end, to insert:


8 & 9 Geo. 5, c. 54.
Tithe Act, 1918
The whole Act.


10 & 11 Geo. 5, c. 22.
Ecclesiastical Tithe Rent-charges (Rates) Act. 1920.
The whole Act.


12 & 13 Geo. 5
Ecclesiastical Tithe Rent-charges (Rates) Act, 1922.
The whole Act.


This, I think, cannot be permitted, because the Acts in question are not technically expiring Acts at all. On the other hand, if they were to be continued, the effect would be null and void. They affect the calculation of tithe for certain years, and, therefore, if they were continued for the years that are past, that would be inoperative. Technically, they are not expiring, and it is unnecessary to continue them.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I put the case specifically yesterday to Mr. Speaker, who ruled that it would be in order to move the inclusion of the continuance of these Acts on the Committee stage, and the Amendment cm the paper to-day was tabled in view of that ruling of Mr. Speaker.

Lord HUGH CECIL: In what sense, Mr. Chairman, are these Acts not expiring Acts?

The CHAIRMAN: Because there is no provision for their expiration.

Lord H. CECIL: They are coming to an end.

The CHAIRMAN: The provisions are temporary, and, therefore, if you continue them as they stand, the effect desired by the movers of the Amendment would not take place, because they would merely keep the existing Act in being, whereas the desire is, I presume, that the basis of calculation of tithe in future years should be the same as in past years. That is not provided for by the simple continuance of the Act.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: We do not want to change the basis of the calculation of tithe, and, perhaps, Mr. Chairman, you do not appreciate the vital importance of this Amendment, which arises from this point of view, that the various interests concerned in the Tithe Bill are hoping to postpone the introduction of that Bill till next year, till it is revised. Therefore, Mr. Speaker yesterday suggested that such an Amendment as this could be brought in now in order to make that postponement practicable. If we are not allowed to make this Amendment now, we shall be in a more or less hopeless position to meet the situation in the Tithe Bill. I hope you will consider the point that, if these three Acts are continued, it will merely mean that for one further year the basis on which tithe is collected will be continued, and we shall have a perfectly natural transition from the present state of affairs to the state of affairs contemplated by the parties concerned.

The CHAIRMAN: The merits and the importance or substance of the Amendment cannot and do not have weight with me. If any hon. or right hon. Gentleman can point out that any of these Acts would expire, that there is any provision in the Acts for their expiration, that would be an added argument for moving their continuance, but I am advised that, if the Amendment were accepted, it would have no effect in law. The other objection is that, as a matter of fact, they do not expire.

Mr. ALEXANDER: We are having the. point looked up, but the point we want to make, and which is now being verified, is this, that the present stabilised rate of tithe under the existing Act of 1918 is duo to expire on the 1st January, 1926. The object, therefore, in asking the Government to include in this Bill the present Tithe Acts is that you may maintain the stabilised rate of tithe during next year which is due under the Act to expire on 1st January, 1926, in order that the various interests may discuss with the Government the provisions of the Bill at. present before the House.

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: May I submit that, although it is true that the Act of 1918 does not appear as a whole to expire, yet a portion of it expires, namely, the first Sub-section of Section 1? May I call
your attention to that Sub-section, which reads as follows:
The sum which on or before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-six, becomes payable under the Tithe Acts, 1836 to 1891, in respect of any tithe rentcharge, shall be the sum payable in respect of that rentcharge,
and so on. That Sub-section does appear to expire, though the Act as a whole does not.

Mr. BARR: It was pointed out earlier in the Session that the tithe charge was based on a figure of something like 130. That was continually said by the Minister of Agriculture, and that, I think, is the proof that there is an expiry of the present valuation of the charge, unless either these Acts are continued or a new Act is passed.

The CHAIRMAN: That again is a question of merits and not of order. With regard to the point taken by the hon. Baronet the Member for York (Sir J. Marriott), supposing these provisions were continued, how does that help him? What he really wants is an Amendment of the present Act, and that cannot be done in the Schedule of this Bill. If the Sub-section to which he made reference ran: "The sum which on or before the 1st day of January in every year becomes payable," and so on, then there would be relevancy in continuing that, but this, although some of these provisions have only temporary effect, is not a temporary Act, and, therefore, it does not expire. With regard to the other points that have been taken, Mr. Speaker and myself have each to deal with our powers in our various spheres and having given all possible thought to this matter, it appears to me that it is not an Amendment which I can accept.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
When we were on the Second Reading of this Bill yesterday, I suggested to the Government that, having regard to the position as to tithes, they should meet us by postponing the Debate on this Bill until the discussion on the Tithe Bill had been completed, in order to see if the interests concerned could come to a proper arrangement—I am not concerned as to whether it be by including the whole Act or by an Amendment—so that there would be the
necessary hiatus during which arrangements could be made between the Government and the interests concerned. I am not in any way challenging your view, Mr. Hope; I am rather challenging the attitude of the Government in the matter. Although we made that position perfectly clear yesterday to the Government, they are going to ride off on what is a technical ruling, which, perhaps, the Chair is bound to give. We have the Tithe Bill set down for further discussion on the later stages next Thursday. This Bill, in the meantime, will have gone through all its stages, and, if we come to a deadlock on the Tithe Bill on Thursday, then we shall be without a remedy for continuing the present stabilised rate of charges, and, in view of the attitude of the Government, I think we are entitled to move to report Progress.

Mr. RAWLINSON: I quite understand the technical point, and the difficulty we are in. There are very conflicting interests, and the parties are, apparently, all agreed to allow the matter to remain in statu quo for one year. Cannot the Government allow a one-Clause Bill to be introduced in another place, and with the consent of all parties, allow it to go through practically without discussion in this House? That would appear to meet the wishes of all parties. As I pointed out yesterday, it has the additional advantage of saving over a quarter of a million of money for this particular year, and, if that can be done without displeasing anyone concerned, surely it is a consideration for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When you get such extraordinary unanimity from so many different people affected by this Bill, the Universities, Mr. Pretyman with his Land Union, the Farmers' Union, and various other people, and a considerable number of clergy who object to the Bill—surely if all those people are agreed to let the matter remain as it is, the Government can help us in one form or another.

Lord HUGH CECIL: Before the Government reply to this, I think it is necessary to say one word, and I ask the indulgence of the Committee if I find myself in rather a difficult position. I should very earnestly desire the success of the plea for the postponement of the Bill if I thought only of the academic case of the charitable and educational corporations with which it is my duty
principally to be concerned. I think the Bill is inequitable in respect of those corporations, and I think, in respect to that, further consideration would almost certainly result in a better arrangement being made. On the other hand, in respect of the clergy, though it is quite true some are dissatisfied, the preponderance of opinion among the clergy is, that although all the provisions are not what they would like to have, they desire on the whole the Bill to go through. In that sense I am not bound to the universities, but I am very much interested in their point of view, and I do not want the Government to think that among the clergy generally there is that dissatisfaction with the Bill. I do not believe, really, that that is so. The people who are dissatisfied are always more audible than those who are satisfied, and I am inclined to believe that the opinion of the majority of the clergy is friendly. I do earnestly hope that the academic case will be considered, and that the Government will consent to the postponement of this part for further consideration. So that I am rather in a difficulty to know how to vote on the Motion to report Progress, and I hope the Government will make it easy by the nature of their reply.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): I am afraid I can hardly deal with the merits of the Tithe Bill, because I venture to think that if I attempted to do so you, Mr. Hope, would rule me out of Order. But I think I can assist my Noble Friend's vote on this occasion when I point out to him, that in no circumstances can this Motion have any relation to the Tithe Bill at all. I will explain in a sentence or two why that is so. The Bill which we are discussing in Committee is a Bill to continue the existence of certain expiring laws, that is to say, to provide that certain laws which, under their terms, come to an end at the end of this year, shall go on for another year. In no conceivable circumstances would it be possible to effect what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) desires by doing anything to the Expiring Laws Bill. The reason is that the Acts relating to tithe provide for certain things to happen on or before certain dates, of which I think the latest is the 1st January, 1926. If
you continue the Act you do not alter the wording of the Act, and the Act, therefore, will still provide that on or before the 1st January, 1926, certain things are to happen. It will not mean that you will have to amend that Act and provide that on or before the 1st January, 1927, certain things are to happen, and that the provisions as to what is to happen up to the end of 1925 are going on to the end of 1926. You do not do that by extending the operation of the Act for a year. You merely leave the Act for a year in a state of suspended animation, with nothing to operate upon, and no operative effect.
The only way in which my right hon. and learned Friend's desires can be effected must be, as he says quite properly, by bringing in a special Bill. Whether or not it is desirable to effect that object and bring in that Bill can have no relation to a Motion to Report Progress on the Expiring Laws Bill, because whether it is desirable or undesirable, it cannot affect the Committee stage of the Expiring Laws Bill. If I have made that point clear to the Committee, they will understand why it is that it would not be in order to discuss the extension of the Tithe Act at this moment, and why it is that, whatever view any Member of the Committee takes as to the extension of the Tithe Bill for another year, or as to the passage of the present Tithe Bill coming before the House in a few days, it cannot affect the decision which ought to be come to upon this particular matter. We are dealing with the continuance of certain expiring laws, and by no conceivable means could the provisions as to tithes be affected by any operation of this Bill. If that be so, it is obvious there is no reason for reporting Progress on the present discussion, merely because some Members of the Committee may desire some other Bill, which is not under discussion, to be postponed.

Sir HENRY SLESSER: If we are to deal with the point on the pure technicality, I would point out that the observations of the right hon. and learned Gentleman are confined to the first Act mentioned in the Schedule, and when you are dealing with the question of the relief of rates you are in rather a different position. As I understand the intention of my hon. Friend the Member
for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) in moving this Amendment, it is to find out from the Government what we were promised in effect yesterday. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, as I understood him, said he would tell the Committee to-day what view the Government had taken as to the continuation of the present tithe system. I pointed out there was very little time to run—only a few hours—and he said he could not pledge himself as to what the answer of the Government would be, but he would tell us to-day what the policy of the Government would be with regard to the continuation of the present tithe law, or whether we would be forced to accept the continuation of the present Tithe Bill. No Member of the Government has risen to explain what the policy of the Government is going to be on this particular matter, and we do now ask that the Government should tell us whether they are prepared to give facilities by a one-Clause Bill, or in any other way, to continue the existing tithe situation for another year, or whether they are going to insist on forcing through the other Bill, which nobody, I believe, really wants. I do not want to follow the Noble Lord on the question he raised as to the popularity or unpopularity of various Tithe Bills. I think I should be out of order. But I must say I entirely disagree with his view. I have received hundreds of letters, not from articulate, but from inarticulate clergymen on this particular matter. I think we are entitled to ask that some responsible member of the Government should get up and tell us, apart from the technicality of this particular Act of which the Attorney-General has spoken, whether or not they are prepared to allow the present tithe legislation to continue for another year. The Committee is entitled to know this afternoon what is the position. We gave notice of it yesterday, and were promised an answer, but we get no answer at all. For that reason I have great pleasure in supporting the Motion to report Progress, in order that we may have an answer from the Government as to what the position is.

Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE: May I suggest to the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander), who moved to report Progress, that he is following the wrong course to achieve his
desire? If it be true that there is general agreement in all parts of the Committee that the Tithe Bill now before the House should be postponed for further consideration, and the temporary system continued for another year, that can easily be done on the consideration of the Tithe Bill on Thursday. [An HON. MEMBER: "Too late!"] There is a Clause in the Tithe Bill dealing with the stabilisation of tithes, and another Clause dealing with ecclesiastical tithe rentcharge rates, and if there were general agreement, those two Clauses could be amended, and the rest of the Bill cut out.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. BANKS: The reason given for the postponement has now completely vanished. As was said quite properly, if we have got to deal with the continuation if the present tithe system when we are discussing the expiring laws, then, of course, it is imperative that we should know in good time and be prepared to take the necessary steps. It is quite clear, however, to the House that the present question of the stabilisation of the tithe system cannot be dealt with on the question of the Expiring Laws Bill. Therefore, there is no reason for attempting to divert the Government to that point. It will he quite sufficient for us if we know the decision of the Government before we take steps to deal with the Tithe Bill in this House.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I think the Government ought to hear what our views are on this question, and make up their minds upon it now. There is the Front Bench. There is the hon. and learned Solicitor-General, who has been all through Committee on this Bill. The Attorney-General and the Home Secretary are perfectly aware of all the different interests concerned in the Bill, and they now could give us their opinion as to what the Government mean to do to meet the present position. It is all very well for the hon. and learned Member for Swindon (Mr. Banks) to say, "Wait till Thursday," but between now and Thursday we have to make our arrangements for amending the Bill in ignorance of what the Government are going to do. It does seem to me, when we suddenly discover that we cannot continue these Measures, that now is the moment when we ought to move to report Progress in
order to get from the Government some light on the question of what they mean to do.
If it means a short one-clause Bill, then I think it is absolutely vital before we discuss that Bill on Thursday that the various interests concerned ought to know what to expect in that one-clause Bill. Are we going merely to continue the exemption from the rate at present enjoyed by the owners of poor beneficies, or are we going to continue the unjust valuation of tithes, which has been in operation for the last seven years, or are we going simply to make the tithe rise to 131 or 132? A new Bill next year would make the position more in accord with the actual facts of the situation. If the Government propose to make an announcement on Thursday, I suggest that we ought to have it now. I quite realise that the right hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite cannot commit the Government, but they can give us some indication of what is in their minds in dealing with this Bill. Now is the correct moment.

Mr. BASIL PETO: On a point of Order. Is it correct for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to debate at this time a wholly different matter to that before the House? You have ruled, Mr. Hope, that this matter cannot be dealt with under the Expiring Laws Bill; therefore, I ask you whether it is in order for hon. Members to fire off questions at the Government?

The CHAIRMAN: The reason for my allowing this Motion to be discussed was that there was a misunderstanding in all parts of the House that it would be possible to discuss this matter. Therefore, I do not think it is out of order for the Government to be asked if they are prepared to make a statement now, to-morrow, or Thursday. But, of course, it will not be in order to go into the merits of a Bill that is to come before the House.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The hon. Member who put the point of Order apparently did not notice that we were not now discussing the Expiring Laws Bill, but a Motion to report Progress. I am quite in order. I have now fortified myself with the exact words used yesterday by the Financial Secretary to the
Treasury. The point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander), and the right hon. Gentleman said this by way of reply:
I have not the slightest doubt that more important members of the Government than myself, and those who are responsible for the business of the House, and for questions of policy, will consider the suggestions that have been made. And I have no doubt that an answer to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and those who agree with him will be given in good time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1925, Vol. 188, col. 93.]
The question arose as to what was a good time, and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury stated:
I cannot give any pledge in the matter at all. I think there is sufficient time to make that change if the authorities concerned are willing to do so, but I can give no pledge."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1925, Vol. 188, col. 95.]
That is sufficient time before Thursday in connection with this Measure. We have got all the important members of the Government here, and they know ail about the question, and I ask that they should give us some information as to what it is proposed to do.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Commander Eyres Monsell): As the House very well knows, the Report stage of the Tithe Bill will be taken on Thursday, and Thursday will be the proper time for the Government to make a statement in regard to that Bill. I certainly think it would be entirely out of order for the Government on a Motion to Report Progress to deal with a matter which cannot possibly be affected by the present Bill. That must be quite clear to the House. The Government are not going to shirk any statement in regard to tithe. We shall be

prepared to make that statement at the proper time. I cannot think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite has done anything to help his case in quoting my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. As will be seen quite distinctly, my right hon. Friend gave no pledge whatsoever. In view of this, I hope the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) will withdraw his Motion to Report Progress.

Mr. ALEXANDER: There seems to be a feeling that this is a blocking Motion; but it is not. Perhaps hon. Members are not all aware that there is a large body of farming opinion which is under the impression that the Expiring Laws Bill is the proper Measure in which this matter can be dealt with. That has been so stated—and that is one point. I am amazed at the line taken by some hon. Members and I want, if I may, to trespass a little longer upon the patience of the Attorney-General and ask him to make the position clear. Would it not be necessary if there was a one-clause Bill introduced, as suggested, still to include in the Expiring Laws Bill, the main portion of the existing Tithe Act?

The CHAIRMAN: That cannot be done, because there is nothing that expires.

Mr. ALEXANDER: If that be the answer, I shall not bother the Attorney-General. On the general question, however, I feel I cannot withdraw the Motion to report Progress, because I think it is quite proper that we should have a statement from the Government.

Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 127; Noes, 288.

Division No. 363.]
AYES.
[6.10 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Buchanan, G.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Cape, Thomas
Gibbins, Joseph


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Charleton, H. C.
Gosling, Harry


Ammon, Charles George
Clowes, S.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Cluse, W. S.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Greenall, T.


Baker, Walter
Compton, Joseph
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Connolly, M.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Barr, J.
Cove, W. G.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Batey, Joseph
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Groves, T.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Dalton, Hugh
Grundy, T. W.


Broad, F. A.
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)


Bromfield, William
Day, Colonel Harry
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)


Bromley, J.
Dennison, R.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Dunnico, H.
Hardie, George D.


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Palin, John Henry
Taylor, R. A.


Hayday, Arthur
Paling, W.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Hayes, John Henry
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Thurtle, E.


Hirst, G. H.
Potts, John S.
Tinker, John Joseph


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Richardson, M. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Townend, A. E.


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Riley, Ben
Varley, Frank B.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Ritson, J.
Viant, S. P.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Walsh, Rt. Hon Stephen


Kelly, W. T.
Scrymgeour, E.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Kennedy, T.
Scurr, John
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Kenyon, Barnet
Sexton, James
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Lansbury, George
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Weir, L. M.


Lawson, John James.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Welsh, J. C.


Lee, F.
Sitch, Charles H.
Westwood, J.


Livingstone, A. M.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Lowth, T.
Smillie, Robert
Whiteley, W.


Lunn, William
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Mackinder, W.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


MacLaren, Andrew
Snell, Harry
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


March, S.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)
Windsor, Walter


Montague, Frederick
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles
Wright, W.


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Stamford, T. W.
Young, E. Hilton (Norwich)


Murnin, H.
Stephen, Campbell



Oliver, George Harold
Sutton, J. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Frederick Hall and Mr. Warne.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Clarry, Reginald George
Grant, J. A.


Albery, Irving James
Clayton, G. C.
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Grotrian, H. Brent


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Cooper, A. Duff
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Apsley, Lord
Couper, J. B.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad)


Ashmead-Bartlett, E.
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Hammersley, S. S.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander, F. W.
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hanbury, C.


Atkinson, C.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Crook, C. W.
Harland, A.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)


Balniel, Lord
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Harrison, G. J. C.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Barclay-Harvey C. M.
Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Haslam, Henry C.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hawke, John Anthony


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Dalziel, Sir Davison
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxfd, Henley)


Bennett, A. J.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)


Berry, Sir George
Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Bethell, A.
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Hilton, Cecil


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Drewe, C.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Duckworth, John
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Elveden, Viscount
Holland, Sir Arthur


Brass, Captain W.
England, Colonel A.
Holt, Capt. H. P.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Homan, C. W. J.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.


Brown, Maj. D. C.(N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Fermoy, Lord
Hurd, Percy A.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Fielden, E. B.
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Finburgh, S.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Campbell, E. T.
Fleming, D. P.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.


Cassels, J. D.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Jacob, A. E.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Jephcott, A. R.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Fraser, Captain Ian
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)


Chapman, Sir S.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Charterls, Brigadier-General J.
Gates, Percy
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Gee, Captain R.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Christie, J. A.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Knox, Sir Alfred


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lamb, J. Q.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Goff, Sir Park
Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.




Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Pease, William Edwin
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Penny, Frederick George
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G (Westm'eland)


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Loder, J. de V.
Perring, William George
Storry, Deans, R.


Looker, Herbert William
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Lowe, Sir Francis William
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Pielou, D. P.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Pilcher, G.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Lumley, L. R.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Lynn, Sir R. J.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Radford, E. A.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Raine, W.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Ramsden, E.
Tinne, J. A.


McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Rawson, Alfred Cooper
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Macintyre, Ian
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


McLean, Major A.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Macmillan, Captain H.
Remer, J. R.
Waddington, R.


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Remnant, Sir James
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Macquisten, F. A.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Margesson, Captain D.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Watts, Dr. T.


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Rye, F. G.
Wells, S. R.


Meller, R. J.
Salmon, Major I.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Meyer, Sir Frank
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Moles, Thomas
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. S. M.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Sandon, Lord
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Moreing, Captain A. H.
Savery, S. S.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Murchison, C. K.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Wolmer, Viscount


Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Shepperson, E. W.
Womersley, W. J.


Nelson, Sir Frank
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld.)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Smithers, Waldron
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Nuttall, Ellis
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)



Oakley, T.
Spender Clay, Colonel H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. Willliam
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Captain Hacking and Major Cope.

Mr. MacLAREN: I beg to move, in page 8, line 1, to leave out Part IV.
Part IV of the Second Schedule deals with the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896; the Agricultural Bates, Congested Districts, and Burgh Land Tax Relief (Scotland) Act, 1896, and the Agricultural Rates Act, 1923. In moving that these Acts be brought to an end, I have two thoughts in my mind. The first is the high rates in the industrial parts of the country and the enormous difficulties facing those areas in trying to meet their liabilities; and the second is that, despite the fact that these Acts were brought into this House with a view to improving agriculture, we now know that the prophecies that they would do nothing more or less that add to the rental value of the land have been fulfilled. In 1922–23 the taxpayers of this country had to make up £1,503,473 in respect of relief in rates given to agricultural land, and in 1923–24, under the further reduction allowed by the Act of 1923, the relief given by the taxpayers to the agricultural land-
owners amounted to £4,725,230. I challenge those who advocate this method of agricultural rating to prove that it has been of benefit to agriculture as an industry. By reviewing the prices realised for land in agricultural districts, it can be proved that the not result of the relief given to the rates has re-expressed itself in the prices secured by landowners in transfers and sales of land.
The matter does not end there. Every town is surrounded by what is called agricultural land, rated at agricultural value, that is, at a quarter of its real value. We know what prices are asked when we seek to secure plots of that land for building purposes. A glaring case was quoted by Sir Edgar Harper in a paper before the Royal Statistical Society. He stated that of the total area of 74,816 acres within the administrative county of London, no less than 8,102 acres, or more than 10 per cent., were treated as "agricultural land" within these Acts. Of the total rates levied upon the area, amounting to £15,869,191, only
£2,594, or about .016 per cent. of the whole was charged on this "agricultural land." This statement was made by Sir Edgar Harper before the 1923 Act was passed. Under that Act, those 8,102 acres of so-called agricultural land in London, possessing enormous market value if it were sold, would realise in rates only £l,297.
I dare say hon. and right hon. Members have been receiving petitions from all over the country asking that when the Rating and Valuation Bill comes before the House relief should be given in respect of rates on machinery—that relief should be given here, there and everywhere. I am one of those who believe that the best way of giving an impetus to industry is by reducing as far as possible the heavy incubus of rates and taxes now levied upon it. The rates collected by the authorities of this country in 1923–24 amounted to the enormous sum of more than £141,000,000. These rates, plus taxation, are really expressed in the prices we ask for the commodities we send to international markets where we are under a cross fire of undercutting from foreign competition and the heavy dead-weight of taxation and of rates in this country. That is how the industrialist looks at it. When he casts his eyes towards the agricultural districts he sees Agricultural Rates Acts in operation. If they could be proved to be a distinct help to the industry of agriculture something might be said for them.
During the Committee stage of the Act of 1923 some of us pointed out that the relief was being given in the wrong way that it ought to have been given to the farmer in respect of rates levied upon farmers' improvements. Some of us tried to effect that change, but no relief was given to the agriculturist upon the rates levied upon improvements; all the relief was to go to the so-called agricultural land. I defy any student of this question, either in this House or outside, to disprove this statement, that every penny of relief you give in respect of the land itself must ultimately re-express itself in the rent realised by the landowners and in the capitalised prices realised upon sale. These Acts have not been of any advantage to agriculture as an industry. They have been of advantage to those who speculate in the value of land, they have increased rents, and at the same time this
relief of rates has increased by an equivalent amount the taxation levied upon the taxpayers of the country. In other words, these so-called reliefs to agriculture under these Acts are a penalty upon the industry, a subsidy to landlordism, and of no relief whatever in the direct road of helping agriculture.
Look at the housing conditions in every town in this country. I represent a constituency in the Potteries. Only last week I went into one of our areas there and found housing conditions which could not be equalled by anything in Glasgow— too appalling to describe to this House. There were 18 people living in two rooms under conditions in which no self-respecting man would dare to breed cattle. Not 200 yards from that spot was land producing nothing, lying vacant, entered on the rates books as agricultural land and receiving its due amount of relief as agricultural land. These slum houses out of which I came were rated at anything from 12s. to 15s. in the £. When I went to this so-called agricultural land, a few hundred yards away, the owner of which receives all the benefits under the Agricultural Rates Acts, I found the owner was holding that land for £800 per acre. I challenge anyone in this House to prove that by these so-called reliefs we are giving any impetus to agriculture as an industry. The reliefs have enhanced the prices of land in agricultural areas, and have screwed up the prices asked by landlords when towns are extending into the country districts. Of course, I feel that I may not meet with success in proposing this Amendment, but to allow this thing to go on year after year without a protest from our side would be a delinquency on our part which we are not prepared to tolerate. I would remind hon. Members that under the new Rating and Valuation Bill these measures are to be transferred from the position of receiving annually our assent in this House to the position of permanent Acts.

Mr. HARDIE: I want to deal with what are now known as city margins. Every city and town has what we call a city margin of land, and that margin receives very great benefit owing to the congestion of the city. It receives great benefits under the rating system. In supporting what has been said in the previous speech, surely I could do nothing better than to point out as an argument the fact that
just in proportion to your city margins an increase in price is demanded by landlords, and in that ratio you have overcrowding in the centre of your cities. In Glasgow we have about a quarter of the land claiming relief from agricultural rates. In different parts of the city you find landlords escaping the rates by erecting a railing round their land and putting up a board displaying the words "For Sale," whilst inside this railing you see an accumulation of dead cats and dogs and other rubbish. The moment the community desire more room to live and to expand by providing better houses, then these burial grounds for cats and dogs become a gold mine for the landlord.
You have in your cities and growing towns a type of individual who is always watching the progress of the community, awaiting industrial development in order to increase the price of his land. How could any House of Commons with a Tory Government in power do anything else but support such a system? We have heard a good deal in this House about supporting new industries, and we were told that after the War great things were going to be done. I would like to mention the case of a new industry not in my constituency. When it was started they had to pay £3 per foot frontage for the land 125 feet deep. After one year's earnest working they did so well that they wanted to make an extension of their premises, and, although by starting that industry they had found work for a large number of unemployed, when they went to ask their great, patriotic landlord, who talks on the platform about laying down his life for his country, to sell them more land, he asked £9 per foot, or £3,000 per acre. At the basis of our industries you have this blood-sucking going on, and the result is that, in the case I have alluded to, it means that the instruments they are producing have to be increased in price, and this interferes with their foreign trade, because higher prices have to be charged simply because of the high price of land.
Therefore, you are not only by this policy destroying industry, but you are bringing about at the same time a reduction of wages. Landlords are now being subsidised by being allowed a reduction of their rates. Not long ago
the Prime Minister made sympathetic references in regard to the slums of Glasgow, but he is not willing to do anything to do away with those things which lie in the way of workers getting better conditions under which to live. If the Prime Minister only had the courage of his opinions he would at once get his party to remove all these land anomalies which are causing such hardship among the poorer people.

Sir K. WOOD: I know the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) who introduced this Amendment will forgive me if I do not enter into all the matters to which he has referred, because no doubt this will be the subject of further debate later on. I think most hon. Members will agree that the Committee will be taking a wise course by continuing the powers contained in the Schedule dealing with this particular matter, at any rate until we have discussed the whole subject, as we shall do in connection with the Valuation and Rating Bill in a few days time. In that Bill we are asking the House to make permanent provision so far as the relief of agriculture is concerned. What we are asking for this afternoon is simply to continue these Bills until some decision has been arrived at. In the particular Bill which I have just mentioned suggestions are made whereby this relief will be of a permanent character, and when this question is before the House it can be challenged. As I have already pointed out, it will be some little time before that Measure can come into operation, and, therefore, it is necessary for these Bills to be continued. I hope the Committee will be content with that statement. The Mover of this Amendment has referred to a matter about which I know a little. He mentioned the case of some slums in his own constituency, and stated that some landlord was holding up the land and asking £800 an acre for it. I cannot understand such a statement, because the local authority has power to enter into possession of such land.

Mr. MacLAREN: We attempted to obtain that land, but owing to its high price we gave up the task.

Sir K. WOOD: The local authority need not enter into negotiations at all in such a case, because they can serve notice immediately. What is more, in
such a case the price of the land has to be settled by an independent arbiter. Therefore, there can be no question of anybody holding up land in regard to housing. I may point out also that the average price of land, so far as our workmen's houses are concerned, is limited to the very small sum of £20. I wish it could be said that other people in the building trade had only been able to obtain as little out of housing as the landlords? That is the real position, and that is the only statement which has been made in this Debate to which I feel qualified to reply. I feel some confidence in asking the Committee to follow this course, because I remember that in 1924 a similar Bill was presented by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) which included Part IV of the Agricultural Rates Acts, 1896. I hope the Committee will allow these Acts to be continued until we have discussed the measures being brought forward by the Government.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I think it is more necessary day by day to oppose the present decision of the Government. Much of the building land around towns and cities is rented at an extremely low rental and is exempted from rates, the result being that the other ratepayers have to make good the difference. I think it is the more important because the Bill to which the hon. Gentleman refers, the Rating and Valuation Bill, proposes, as he knows quite well, to exempt machinery from rating, with a view to reducing overhead charges and making it more easy for our trade to recover. That, as he knows, throws an additional burden upon the ratepayers in the locality. Indeed, the chief opposition to that very just amendment of our law arises from the fact that an additional burden, sometimes amounting to 7d. in the £, is going to be thrown on the ratepayers in various localities. Is it not, therefore, all the more important that we should now put an end to a state of affairs which allows certain happy ratepayers who own building land, or land of building value, around towns, to escape three-fourths of their rates and put it upon the rest of the community?
I know it will be said that this Bill has been continued year after year. I remember, when it was introduced in 1896, that the whole of the Liberal party
of that day opposed the Bill on the ground that, although it was a temporary Measure, it would undoubtedly be continued. They pointed out then as I would like to do now, that this exemption given to owners of agricultural land from rates—at that time one-half, now three-fourths—would not help agriculture in the least, but would merely mean that bigger rents would be paid for that land. I remember Mr. Francis Dyke Acland, when he was in the House only two or three years ago, on the question of extending the relief from one-half to three-fourths, frankly telling the House that this would mean an additional value for his property.
Indeed, everyone concedes that, if you reduce the rates upon agricultural land pure and simple—not buildings—the net result is an increase in the capital selling value of the land when the rates are reduced. It was said, I think by Mr. Chaplin, while the Bill of 1896 was going through this House, that the higher the rates the lower the rents, and the lower the rates the higher the rent, so far as agricultural land was concerned; and I remember Sir Daniel Ford Goddard pointing out to the House that this was not a real remission of taxation or remission of rates, but that it was a. gift to the landlord class of 25 years' purchase of the remitted rates, and was, therefore, putting money straight into the pockets of the landlords. He quoted Mr. Goschen, a great authority in earlier days, to that effect. I think the quotation from Mr. Goschen, if I remember rightly, was something like this, that the rates were an hereditary burden upon property; that every owner who bought land, bought it subject to the payment of those rates, and, therefore, paid a lower price for the land because it was subject to those rates; that every piece of land that had been bought or sold or inherited had been bought or sold or inherited subject to the payment of those rates, and that, if there was a relief of one-half—as it was then—of the burden of rates, that was putting hard cash into the pockets of the owners by enabling them to get a better price for their Land and a better rent for their property.
That was the objection to the Agricultural Hates Acts originally, and it is a sound economic objection which exists to-day. I do think, when we are faced with a housing problem and an unemploy-
ment problem both caused directly by the increased charge which owners of land and raw materials are able to extract from the people who want to use them, that now, at any rate, we ought to make a change, and to cease to give this special benefit to one particular class of ratepayers. All over the country will be found local authorities who are going absolutely bankrupt; they cannot make both ends meet now that the unemployed are thrown off benefit and on to the rates. Surely now is the time when we should enable those local authorities to make both ends meet, by allowing them to invite to join the ranks of the ratepayers these people who for the last 30 years have been escaping their just due. For all these reasons I hope the Government will consider the possibility of dropping these rate exemptions now, and of allowing us, when the Rating and Valuation Bill comes forward, to knock them out for ever, and put the ratepayers of every class and kind upon the same footing, ceasing to exempt those ratepayers who have been exempted by Act of Parliament in repeated years, and enabling them to assist the other ratepayers in meeting the extraordinary charges that now fall upon industry.

Mr. BANKS: Considering the large amount of time that was consumed by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) in the Committee on the Rating and Valuation Bill, I confess I am amazed to find that he still, apparently, entirely misapprehends the fundamental principles of the law of rating. You do not rate the owner of land, unless he happens to be an occupier, and you do not rate land upon its selling value. That is not the criterion at all. The fundamental principle of the law of rating is that you ask yourself, when valuing land, what rent a hypothetical tenant would give for the piece of land in question, taking one year with another. The broad distinction between relief given to agricultural land and relief given to machinery is this: The whole difficulty about machinery has arisen from our having to say whether the machinery in a large factory is or is not really a part of the premises. The Law Courts had great difficulty in deciding whether it was or whether it was not. In an early series of cases they
laid down what I think was a proper criterion, namely, that if it was so much a part of the building that it would pass on the demise of the property, it should be rated, and not otherwise. Then, of course, one came to the difficulty of assessing factories because of the profits they earn, and so forth. That is why we now say that there is a great claim on the part of machinery to be exempted from rating—first of all, because we think the Law Courts have laid down a wrong principle, or, at any rate, a confusing principle, and because the practice is still very far from uniform and is very anomalous.
When you come to deal with agricultural land, the relief given to agricultural land by way of rates has nothing whatever in the world to do with the price of the land for sale, or the price which may be exacted by the landlord who is fortunate enough to have land in a city. T will tell the right hon. Gentleman why. If he says the relief given in rates to agricultural land is going to increase its price to a buyer, I would ask, why is it going to increase its price? It is for this reason only, that that is a class of land which has to bear a smaller burden of rates, and, therefore, it will be worth the while of a purchaser to pay more for it. That is assuming that it is still going to be used as agricultural land. But if it is going to be sold for building land, which may have to be done if the land is on the outskirts of a city, it is going to be sold in order that houses may be put upon it, and in that case the relief will vanish, and no one contemplating purchasing it will give an additional farthing for it on that account.
The taxes on land, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, have nothing at all to do with the rates; there is a different valuation, and there will continue to be. The question of the selling price, as I have said, is really irrelevant; both the hon. Members who have spoken were really dealing with the taxation of land values, which is an entirely different principle from that which prevails with regard to rating. There is another reason why the question of the selling price is irrelevant. If I have land outside a large city, where it is urgently required for the purpose of building houses, until I sell that land I am not getting anything extra for it. It is lying
there, and I am not putting money into my pocket; I am not extorting an additional high rent, and, therefore, of course, there is no reason in the world why I should pay higher rates. I am standing out of my money until I sell. It is not the relief that adds to the value. I only get relief so long as I use my land as agricultural land, and so long as I use it as agricultural land I cannot get a high rent, so that it is quite unreasonable and absurd to suggest that I should pay high rates. If I sell my land to someone who is going to use it for agricultural purposes, possibly he may be induced to pay me a higher price, because it is the class of land that bears lower rate; but if I sell it to someone like the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren), who wants to put houses on it, it is going to lose that relief in the matter of rates, and, naturally, no one is going to pay a higher price for it.
Finally, it seems to me that both the hon. Members, when speaking of the poor people in the cities, entirely forgot the poor people who are engaged upon the land. I am not going to travel outside the question of rating, but we have had many discussions in the House upon the extreme difficulty which farmers are finding at the present time in paying to their agricultural labourers those wages which we know they and everyone else would desire to see paid. One of the difficulties they have is that they are rated heavily, or, rather, they were before the relief was given, for a series of services from which only the urban population derive advantage. Education, highways, sanitation—they have to pay for all these things, and do not really get much advantage out of them; it is the town dwellers who get the advantage; and, on Sundays and other days, the town dweller comes out in his chars-à bane and motor lorries and cuts up the roads for which the farmers have to pay. On these and many other grounds this relief was given, and in my opinion its effect in enabling the farmers to pay better wages more than compensates for any loss there may be to other classes of ratepayers. As to the question of the acquisition of land, and the demand for land in the vicinity of our great cities, even if this Bill were to be cut short to-morrow it would not affect the situation by one jot or one tittle.

Mr. SCURR: I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Swindon (Mr. Banks), and am very pleased that the silence of the other side has at last been broken in the Debate regarding this Bill. I was, however, really unable to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. As I understood it, it was that, if we have this relief in rates on so-called agricultural land, the result will be that, because of that relief in rates, a person will buy that land or rent it at a somewhat higher figure than if the relief in rates had not been given. His second point was that, when you come into the town and the land ceases to be agricultural land, and, therefore, loses the benefit of this relief, a person coming along will pay a higher price still for the land.

Mr. BANKS: No.

Mr. SCURR: That was the hon. and learned Gentleman's statement.

Mr. BANKS: I must correct the hon. Member. My point was that while, if the land is going to be sold for agricultural purposes, you may increase the value of the land when you lower the rates, if it is a question of putting houses on the land the purchaser is not going to pay a higher price for it, because when he has got it he loses the relief in question.

7.0 P.M.

Mr. SCURR: I think that, really, I correctly represented what the hon. and Learned Member said, and I leave him on the horns of the dilemma on which he has impaled himself. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health spoke all the time of local authorities coming in and taking the land, and said that it was all a question of referring to an independent valuation. That is a very interesting thing, because, after all, those of us who are concerned with municipal administration, and particularly with the housing problem with which we are faced at the present moment, especially in London, whether on the county council or on the borough councils, find ourselves all the time faced with this question of the high value of land. I have in front of me at the present time certain figures which I think the Committee ought to know. There is the estate at Becontree, which the London County Council are developing at the present time. They are trying their best and I will give
credit to the members of the party opposite to my own, and I will give credit to the Chairman of the Housing Committee of the London County Council that he personally is sincerely desirous of doing all he can to get as many houses as possible. What has been the case on the Becontree Estate? The annual net value rated as agricultural land was £3,590. I submit that a really fair price would have been 35 years' purchase, and that would have been £125,000, but, actually, the London County Council had to pay £295,000, or over 80 years' purchase of the rateable value. With regard to the Bellingham Estate, it is even worse. Thirty-five years' purchase of that would have given £15,750. Actually, the London County Council had to pay £50,339, or 102 years' purchase of rateable value. On the Roehampton Estate, which I suppose is perhaps, from, a social point of view, a better neighbourhood, it was 126 years' purchase of the rateable value. It is absurd that property of this kind should be receiving a relief in rates on account of expenditure by the ratepayers, whether it has been wise expenditure of boroughs like Stoke Newington, under the control

of Municipal Reform administration, or whether in places like Poplar, which are reckless and extravagant according to Members opposite. Whatever services are paid for by the ratepayers keep on increasing the value of this land.

We have in the great city of Birmingham 43,000 acres, and 20,000 acres are rated as agricultural land. I find, in accordance with the return made in this House in 1914, that whereas the total rates collected in Birmingham amounted to £1,618,000, the 20,000 acres of so-called agricultural land only contributed £7,000. Statistically, the case is absolutely watertight so far as our position is concerned. If, as the hon. Gentleman opposite says, it is the intention of the Government to make these Acts permanent in the Bating and Valuation Bill, then there is no need to carry them forward on this occasion at all. The whole thing ought to be dropped, so that when it comes before us as the Rating and Valuation Bill it can be dealt with in a proper manner.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 275: Noes, 127.

Division No. 364.]
AYES.
[7.5 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Butt, Sir Alfred
Duckworth, John


Albery, Irving James
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Campbell, E. T.
Elliot, Captain Walter E.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Cassels, J. D.
Elveden, Viscount


Apsley, Lord
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
England, Colonel A.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)


Atholl, Duchess of
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith


Atkinson, C.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Chapman, Sir S.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Balniel, Lord
Charterls, Brigadier-General J.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Chilcott, Sir Warden
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Christie, J. A.
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Fenby, T. D.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Clarry, Reginald George
Fermoy, Lord


Beckett, Sir Gervase
Clayton, G. C.
Fielden, E. B.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Finburgh, S.


Bennett, A. J.
Cooper, A. Duff
Fleming, D. P.


Berry, Sir George
Couper, J. B.
Ford, P. J.


Bethell, A.
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.


Betterton, Henry B.
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Forrest, W.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Craik Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Crook, C. W.
Fremantle, Lieut. Colonel Francis E.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Ganzoni, Sir John


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Gates, Percy


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Gee, Captain R.


Brass, Captain W.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Dalziel, Sir Davison
Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Goff, Sir Park


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Grant, J. A.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Brown, Maj. D. C.(N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Gretton, Colonel John


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Dawson, Sir Philip
Grotrian, H. Brent


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Bullock, Captain M.
Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Drewe, C.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Hammersley, S. S.
Macintyre, Ian
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Hanbury, C.
McLean, Major A.
Savery, S. S.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Macmillan, Captain H.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Harland, A.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Macquisten, F. A.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Harrison, G. J. C.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Shepperson, E. W.


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Haslam, Henry C.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Hawke, John Anthony
Margesson, Captain D.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Meller, R. J.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Meyer, Sir Frank
Smithers, Waldron


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Moles, Thomas
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Hilton, Cecil
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Moore-Brabazon Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Storry Deans, R.


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Holt, Capt. H. P.
Murchison, C. K.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Homan, C. W. J.
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld.)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Nuttall, Ellis
Tinne, J. A.


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Oakley, T.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Penny, Frederick George
Word, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Hurd, Percy A.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Hutchison, G. A. Clark(Midl'n & P'bl's)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Perring, William George
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Watts, Dr. T.


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Wells, S. R.


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Pilcher, G.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Jacob, A. E.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Jephcott, A. R.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Radford, E. A.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Raine, W.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Kenyon, Barnet
Ramsden, E.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Rawson, Alfred Cooper
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Remnant, Sir James
Wise, Sir Fredric


Lamb, J. Q.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Wolmer, Viscount


Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Womersley, W. J.


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Loder, J. de V.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Lowe, Sir Francis William
Rye, F. G.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Salmon, Major I.
Wragg Herbert


Luce, Major-Gen, Sir Richard Harman
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Lumley, L. R.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)



MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Sandeman, A. Stewart
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Major Cope and Mr. F. C.


McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Sandon, Lord
Thomson.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hirst, G. H.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Crawfurd, H. E.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Dalton, Hugh
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Ammon, Charles George
Day, Colonel Harry
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Dennison, R.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Duncan, C.
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Baker, Walter
Dunnico, H.
Kelly, W. T.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kennedy, T.


Barnes, A.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Lansbury, George


Batey, Joseph
Gibbins, Joseph
Lawson, John James.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Gosling, Harry
Lee, F.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lowth, T.


Briant, Frank
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Lunn, William


Broad, F. A.
Greenall, T.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)


Bromfield, William
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Mackinder, W.


Bromley, J.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
MacLaren, Andrew


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Buchanan, G.
Grundy, T. W.
March, S.


Cape, Thomas
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)


Charleton, H. C.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Montague, Frederick


Clowes, S.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Cluse, W. S.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Murnin, H.


Compton, Joseph
Hardle, George D.
Oliver, George Harold


Connolly, M.
Hayday, Arthur
Palin, John Henry


Cove, W. G.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Paling, W.




Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Ponsonby, Arthur
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Potts, John S.
Stamford, T. W.
Weir, L. M.


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Stephen, Campbell
Welsh, J. C.


Riley, Ben
Sutton, J. E.
Westwood, J.


Ritson, J.
Taylor, R. A.
Whiteley, W.


Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Wiggins, William Martin


Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Scrymgeour, E.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Scurr, John
Thurtle, E.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Tinker, John Joseph
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Townend, A. E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Varley, Frank B.
Windsor, Walter


Sitch, Charles H.
Viant, S. P.
Wright, W.


Smillie, Robert
Wallhead, Richard C.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen



Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Snell, Harry
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D.(Rhonnda)
Mr. Warne and Mr. Hayes.


Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip




Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Schedule, as amended, be the Second Schedule to the Bill."

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I want to raise a question, not in any way objecting to the Acts in the Schedule, with regard to the Ministry of Food Continuance Act, 1920, which appears in Part I of the Schedule. It was continued for the sole purpose of providing for the sale of bread by weight. There has been a procedure laid down under which a Select Committee decides every three years to recommend which Acts shall be made permanent and which temporary. This Act has been continued every year in the Expiring Laws Bill for five years, and yet this question of selling bread by weight is one that is of vital interest to the whole of the public. At the Board of Trade last year we had got to the position of the preparation of a Bill to make permanent the sale of bread by weight. There were difficulties at the time with regard to negotiations with the Scottish Office, but when the election came last year we were on the point of getting a satisfactory conclusion of those negotiations, and we were under the impression that this Session we should most certainly get put upon the Statute Book an Act of Parliament making it compulsory to sell bread by weight. We are anxious to know whether the Government are able to contemplate now the introduction of a Bill which will make permanent the provisions of the Sale of Food Order and if so, whether that Bill will be introduced within the next few months.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As far as I know, the hon. Member has not given notice that he wished to raise this question, and I am exceedingly sorry there is no one present representing the Board of
Trade. I see my hon. Friend has come in now. The matter is not in my Department.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): I was not aware that this question was coming up at this stage of the Bill, as it was not moved when we were discussing the Schedule.

Mr. ALEXANDER: The only place where we can raise this question, if there is no Amendment on the Paper, is on the Schedule.

Sir B. CHADWICK: I was pointing out that no Amendment had been put down. This item enables Parts I and III of the Sale of Food Order, 1921, to be continued. It is a Measure which meets with the general approval of everyone concerned, and of the traders themselves, and it has been continued year after year ever since the War. Part I of the Order stipulates that bread shall be sold by weight— 1 lb. or an even number of lbs. weights— and that seems to satisfy everyone. It may be said it would be desirable that a Measure of this kind should be provided for by an Act. Successive Governments have made efforts to get the matter into an Act, the last occasion being in the last Government, of which the hon. Member was a Member, and his name was on the last Bill. For one reason or another, it has not been found possible to get the Bill through, and so we are coming to the Committee again to ask them to continue it under the Expiring Laws Bill.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I have said that last year this very desirable procedure of making this permanent was held up because the Scottish Office had some difference of opinion with the Board of Trade, but we had arrived at a stage
when we hoped to be coming to an agreement. I want to know what has happened in rather more than 12 months to the Bill which was actually in draft. Has the Department continued the negotiations with the Scottish Office, have they broken down, or why is it that the public is still without a permanent arrangement for the sale of bread by weight?

Sir B. CHADWICK: The public does not seem to be uneasy about the matter. The public is perfectly comfortable about it. Generally, it may be considered that a matter of this kind, about which everyone is so happy, should be put into a Bill and possibly an opportunity will present itself later. All I can say is that if an opportunity presents itself I have no doubt the Government will take it into consideration and possibly embody it in a public Act.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.

Not amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

CLAUSE 1.—(Power of local authorities to provide medicines, etc., to persons suffering from diabetes.)

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): I have a manuscript Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. William Adamson). I do not think it is in order. It goes outside the Title of the Bill, which confines the Bill to making arrangements for providing medicines and treatment for persons suffering from diabetes and for purposes connected therewith.

Dr. SHIELS: I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, at the end, to insert the words
The Board shall require the local authority to arrange that any medicines used for the treatment of such persons shall be dispensed by a registered pharmacist or by a registered medical officer or practitioner.
This Amendment has had a somewhat chequered career. Upstairs I had it in
a much more lengthy and formidable form, but it aroused considerable opposition. The Secretary for Scotland opposed it on very interesting grounds. It was suggested that its effect would be to encourage the sale of insulin by chemists instead of by the public authority. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that the Board of Health could buy insulin in bulk very much cheaper than it could be supplied by the chemist. My disappointment in his opposition was almost compensated for by my joy at his conversion to Socialist principles, although I am afraid that conversion was probably of a very temporal and spasmodic kind. I was also opposed from my own benches. Certain of my colleagues had a suspicion that there was professional trade unionism at the back of my Amendment, and professional trade unionism was a thing, strangely enough, that some of them were not able to sympathise with. However, both of these opponents were entirely wrong as to the object of my Amendment, which is moved entirely in the public interest. This is a Bill to provide insulin for poor people who are not in the poor law class, but are yet not able to afford the very considerable price for this drug, and my contention is a very simple one, that this section of the community should have the drug given them, with the same precautions and under the same conditions as other sections of the community. Insulin is already supplied by the Poor Law authorities under medical supervision It is already supplied under the National Health Insurance Act with every possible precaution, and this is the one section of the community that is to be left without anything specified in the Bill as to the method by which it is to be distributed.
In the rearrangement of my Amendment I took occasion to meet part of the opposition which was put by the Government. They said that one objection to it, as framed, was that in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland it would be practically impossible in many places to find qualified pharmacists either in the employment of a local authority or in business as chemists. There would be many islands and other places where it would be quite impossible to find such an individual, and I quite recognise the force of that objection. I think in the
medical profession we are tending more and more to discourage medical men trading in drugs, and it was for that reason that the medical man was kept out of the Amendment as formerly framed. To meet this point, which, I admit, is a difficulty, I have altered the form of the Amendment, and it reads now "a registered pharmacist or a registered medical officer or practitioner." That seems to meet the only real criticism which could be put against my Amendment. I think it is very desirable that we should include in this Bill definite safeguards in regard to the distribution of insulin. It is a very potent and dangerous drug, and unless it is distributed with care, the results may be very serious, and it is solely on that account that I ask that it should be supplied, as it is in connection with these other services I have mentioned, under the professional supervision either of a registered qualified pharmacist or medical officer. I trust that, in view of the effort which I have made to meet the criticisms by the Government, the new form of my Amendment will be. accepted, so that the people with whom the Bill deals will have the same protection and enjoy the same precautions in regard to this drug that other sections of the community enjoy.

Mr. KELLY: I beg to second the Amendment.
I want those to whom this particular drug is to be handed out to feel sure that those who are handing it out have a complete knowledge of the case and of the drug which they are handling, so that there may be that protection for which we would ask if the drug was to be handed to us.

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I am unable to accept this Amendment. The hon. Member who moved it said that he moved it in the public interests. We are all at one in desiring that in the administration of this drug, which is a very important drug, the greatest safeguards possible shall be observed. It is a drug manufactured in bulk. It is sold and issued in closed capsules. It is prescribed for the patient by a doctor, but, perhaps, at a certain stage of the treatment, instead of its being administered
by the doctor it may, under certain careful directions of the doctor, be administered by the individual.
The point I want to emphasise to-night is that this drug is sold in capsules, and as far as its purity is concerned, or as far as the operation of the drug is concerned, it is the same whether it is handed out over the counter by a chemist or handed out by the local authority through arrangements at the various clinics. In these circumstances, I do not think it can be said in any way that the risk of the drug being mishandled is any greater under the arrangements that are made under the Bill than if the restrictions proposed by the hon. Member were imposed. As far as our experience has gone, we have been able to dispense it through the Board of Health, in working conjunction with the local authorities concerned, at a price which will bear fair comparison with the price at which it might be issued at the shop of the chemist who, of course, would have his right to make a certain profit. Under these circumstances, I have satisfied myself, as far as a layman can, that the rights of the individuals are carefully protected, and I cannot accept the Amendment.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: This is a very important point. The Secretary for Scotland admits that insulin is a very dangerous drug, as was said, with great authority, by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Dr. Shiels). The right hon. Gentleman says that it is sold in closed capsules. Surely there is a risk, as has been stated by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh upstairs in Committee, of deterioration in the capsules. There have been cases where chemists have rejected supplies of this drug which they have received. It is, therefore, because some of us believe that good chemists would reject bad insulin that we suggest that it would be a real safeguard if this Amendment were accepted. Can we have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman on that point? Is it not a fact that insulin is liable to deterioration, and that the chemist has been able in the past to detect that deterioration and reject supplies of bad insulin?

Sir J. GILMOUR: This is rather a technical question. As far as I have been able to ascertain, the question of deterioration is not one which can be
detected by the pharmacist, the local chemist, in any area. If there is to be proved deterioration after a certain period in this drug, that is done at the headquarters, at the factories where these tests are being made, and it would then lie with the Board of Health to issue orders to withdraw from operation any insulin which had been issued before a certain date. As far as the safety of the public is concerned, it is much more likely to be served by that method than by the local pharmacists.

Mr. WESTWOOD: I understand that there is a possibility that other Amendments on the Paper will not be called, and I am taking the opportunity to speak on this particular Amendment. I wish it had been possible to have something incorporated in the Act which would have made it clear that in the provision of insulin there would be a guarantee that the insulin had been provided only by those who by Act of Parliament had been empowered to prepare the medicine and make it available for the poor people who are to get benefit under this Clause. Some words might have been found which would guarantee that the local authority had seen that only properly qualified persons had been allowed to manufacture the insulin. There was a difference in Committee when we discussed this matter, owing to the fact that what was discussed in Committee would have precluded public bodies from purchasing the drug wholesale or in bulk, and by that means saving money for the ratepayers, and at the same time giving facilities for this wonderful medicine being provided for the poor people.
We are entitled to a guarantee in any Bill which goes through this House that only properly qualified persons shall be allowed to manufacture a particular medicine for the poor people. If I have that guarantee from the Secretary for Scotland or from the Under-Secretary for the Scottish Board of Health—who knows more about medicine than I know, and who has dispensed much medicine— I shall be satisfied. The assurance which I ask for is, that there will be a guarantee that only those who are properly qualified under the Pharmacy Acts for the preparation of this medicine shall be allowed to manufacture it. I desire that the poor people shall be provided with the best
insulin, and that that medicine shall be prepared only by a properly qualified person.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I appreciate very much the proper anxiety which hon. Members feel on this matter, and their desire that every precaution should be taken with regard to the manufacture of this drug. I feel satisfied that I can give a guarantee to the hon. Member that it is manufactured directly under the supervision of the Medical Advisory Council, and that as far as the handling and manufacture of it is concerned it is done by properly qualified people. This Bill deals not with the manufacture but with the distribution of the drug. I am satisfied that the public are properly protected.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. WILLIAM ADAMSON: As far as my colleagues on these benches are concerned, we are in favour of the Bill. Our objection to the Bill is that it does not go far enough. Last year I had an opportunity of introducing a Bill dealing with the same subject, and in that Bill we made provision for extending treatment to other diseases in the event of a remedy as effective as insulin being found for other diseases. This Bill provides for insulin being supplied for poor people who are suffering from diabetes. In seeking to extend the benefits in the way I advocated we were only seeking to bring our public health authorities in Scotland into line with the public health authorities in England. The public health authorities in England have a wider scope for dealing with the provision of medicine for poor people than our public health authorities in Scotland possess, even when the Bill we are now discussing becomes law. If we had extended the provisions to the extent that I sought to provide last year, it would have brought our public health authorities in Scotland into line with the public health authorities in England. We see no reason why that should not be done.
If it is a good thing to provide medicine for poor people suffering from other diseases than diabetes in England, it is a good thing to do the same thing in Scotland, and I regret that the Secretary for Scotland has seen fit to bring in a Bill
of this limited character. Why, we are in favour of the Bill so far as it goes, but we want to register our protest at its limited nature. We believe that if the health of our people is to be properly attended to, the provision of necessary remedies is essential. There is such a disease as cancer, for which an effective remedy may be found at any moment. The scientists are investigating- keenly into that question, and we may be within a very short distance of finding for cancer a remedy as effective as that which has been found for diabetes, and it would be a great pity if the poor people in Scotland could not get the advantage of that remedy because of its costly nature, and we on these benches register our protest against the limited character of this Bill.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I appreciate the thought which the right hon. Gentleman and his friends have given to this particular Measure. On the question of the extension of this Bill to deal with many other problems, it is just because the problem of the magnitude of cancer to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, about which we are all waiting anxiously to hear something, is of so great importance that in our judgment it must be dealt with when that problem arises. No one can visualise to-day either what the nature of the solution may be or what will be the cost of that solution. In these circumstances we felt that if and when that solution is found there would be no reasonable doubt that Parliament would deal with it adequately and properly at the time.

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Commander EYRES MONSELL: Tomorrow.

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
I desire to find out from the Secretary for Scotland what exactly is intended by the change in to-day's business. The
understanding was that we should take the Bill, which has just been discussed, and also the next two or three Bills on the Paper, and endeavour to reach the Sheriff Courts and Legal Officers (Scotland) Bill, on which a great many Members will agree there would have been more controversy than on any other of the Measures which were to come before the House. My right hon. Friend must be aware that deputations have come from Scotland resting on this assurance, and up to a moment ago we have had no notice of the change. The whole programme has therefore been upset, and we are entitled to move the Adjournment of the House at this stage in order to make a respectful protest against what is now proposed.

Commander EYRES MONSELL: No disrespect is intended to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) or the House of Commons, but the House of Commons is aware that our programme is in rather a congested state for this short Session if, as we hope, we are to get away before Christmas. The Opposition have indicated that they desire to discuss many important questions which it is quite right should be discussed in the House of Commons. It is impossible for us to pass into law all the Orders on this Paper and give time to discuss the various questions in which Members are interested. Yesterday we hoped to finish the Criminal Justice Bill. We did not do so, and we must make up that time to-night. Though we very much hoped to be able to get these Bills. I do not think that it would be possible, and we should be only beating the air to have a Second Reading to-night and then find that we could not finish these Measures. We have to come to some arrangement to take those Bills that are agreed to and wanted by all sides. For that reason I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not press his Motion, and that he will understand that no disrespect is intended to Scottish Members or to any section of the House.

Mr. W. ADAMSON: I do not blame the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury for disrespect, I do not think that any is intended, but I want to register our protest against the group of Scottish Bills set down for to-day being broken up in the way in which the Government propose. Not only is it inconvenient to Scottish
Members, but, as has been pointed out by my right hon. Friend, there are some of these Bills in which our fellow countrymen are as deeply interested as we are ourselves, and a number of them have come down for the purpose of hearing the discussion and supplying any information that is necessary. A journey from Scotland costs a considerable amount of money, and before business is put down in the way in which our business has been set out on the Order Paper to-day, all these things should be taken into account. I think that the Government, in proposing to re-arrange the business in the manner in which they suggest, are disposing of Scottish business in a manner that means inconvenience to hon. Members, and to the persons who are here who are very much interested in these Measures, and I quite agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh, that it is necessary to move the adjournment in order to register our protest against a change of that character being made.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: I support the Motion. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that it is absurd to try to bring a charge of disrespect to the House of Commons against the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury. Everybody knows that he is the soul of courtesy; but though no deliberate discourtesy was intended, the Government handling of Scottish business and Scottish Measures undoubtedly has been disrespectful and inconsiderate of Scottish interests. It would be out of order to go into all these questions—War Pensions administration, Rosyth and Summer Time, in which they introduced a compromise flouting the opinion of Scottish farmers—but in one case after another they have shown a lack of care of Scottish interests. Not only have Scottish Members come here to discuss this group of Bills, but deputations have come all the way from Scotland to be present at these discussions and it is very disrespectful, to my mind, or inconsiderate, at any rate, to abandon this business when so much trouble has been taken by large numbers of people to be present. There is another point which is more germane to the Motion. If these Bills are abandoned at this stage we will now pass to the consideration of the Criminal Justice Bill. There is a great number of people interested in the
Criminal Justice Bill, and as they have no idea of this arrangement they will not be here and in their interest also I say that we ought to pass this Motion.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I wish to support the Motion of the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham). I am more than surprised at the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury asking us to accept this particular point of view. On a former occasion the Scottish Members here had occasion to oppose the party opposite, and the House sat until six o'clock in the morning, and this was bitterly resented by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, who said that we had broken our bargain and done something wrong, and at six o'clock in the morning he made a bitter attack on the Scottish Members. Now he comes along with his suggestion to the Scottish Members, and he asks a majority of Scottish Members who are here and interested in the question to go back on an arrangement which was entered into before the House adjourned last August. As the hon. Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) has pointed out, a great number of people have come from Scotland on deputations in connection with these measures. We have met some of them, and they are seeking to influence us from their particular point of view, and then along comes the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury without having the courtesy to inform the Scottish Members of either party—I cannot speak for the party on my left, but none of the party with which I am associated were consulted, and, judging from the speech of the hon. Member for Caithness, none of the Liberal Members were consulted either—makes this change.
8.0 P.M.
If the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and the Secretary for Scotland are to get business through the House they must learn that we are individual Members of the House just as much as they are, and that business can only proceed in accordance with the amount of goodwill on both sides. We have no quarrel with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury. His great desire is to get everything through, but the business of the Secretary for Scotland is to safeguard Scottish interests, and he does that by helping the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, who is acting rightly from his point of view, to brush Scottish business out of the way. That is not good
business for the Secretary for Scotland nor dignified for the country which he represents in this House. I only hope that he will rise in his place and dissociate himself from the action of sidetracking certain Scottish Bills. It is said that unless this was done we could not get certain work carried through. Who wants that work carried through? The Opposition is not claiming half the Bills which appear to-day and nobody would break their hearts if they disappeared. If there were Bills to be passed we could have met months ago and could have passed them all. But now the Secretary for Scotland is adopting the old-fashioned tactics that I learned at school, that when you quarrel with a person the first thing to do is to blame him for doing the wrong and never to blame yourself. That is what he is trying to do. I see that the hon. and learned Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr. MacRobert) is present, On this subject he is generally well informed. There is a Bill with which he is concerned in the list. It deals with an important section of the people of Scotland. I refer to the Sheriff Courts Bill. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman has come here prepared to speak on the subject. The Government action is a discourtesy, therefore, not only to the Opposition, but even to Unionist Members. On the subject of the Sheriff Courts Bill, I have been approached. It is one of the few things about which I do not know very much, and I have come here purposely to listen to the hon. and learned Member for East Renfrewshire. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury will have something to say about the Government's action. Whatever may be said for or against him, I am sure that he will be the first to admit that, so far as the Members with whom I am most closely associated are concerned, we have never yet broken a bargain made with him. Now he is starting to break bargains. If that game is to be played the Government will get the worst of it, because the Opposition have less need to keep a bargain than the Government.
We are meeting for only five weeks. Why should we not have a harmonious five weeks? Why should we start with the breaking of a bargain by the Govern-
ment? The Secretary for Scotland is present. What has he to say in defence of this action? Are we to have no word from him? He is responsible for these Bills. He, with others, in the last Session approached us to get our opinions upon them. Now that we have come here with our opinions, we are to be sidetracked in this way, and we are told that the Bills are not to be proceeded with any further. Has the Secretary for Scotland got any sense of Scottish patriotism? I have read speeches made by him recently, and he has always prided himself on his native Scotland. Surely his pride of nationality will cause him to revolt at this insult, the latest of many insults to Scotland. There have been the closing of Rosyth and other things, one after another, affecting Scotland. This is one of the culminating insults to Scotland.
Before we came here to-night we were told by our Whips that these Scottish Bills were to be discussed, and we have come prepared to discuss them. I have consulted certain of my constituents who are affected. There are in London men who have journeyed all the way from Glasgow and Edinburgh to put their views before us. The results of their travelling are now to be set at bought. It is no laughing matter; it is a serious business. The Home Secretary is present, and he is responsible for a Bill dealing with criminal justice, an English. Measure. Members who thought that we were to deal with Scottish Bills, are not present to deal with the Criminal Justice Bill. The arrangement is not fair to them. Without any desire to be insulting, I say that we might expect the Home Secretary to be stupidly honest on an occasion like this. I hope that the Motion for the Adjournment will be accepted, and that the Secretary for Scotland will rise and say that he, at least, cannot associate himself with this side-tracking policy of the Government.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am sure that Members from Scotland will realise that this question of what business can be taken is one which is really for the management and convenience of the House. As I understand it the Opposition have asked for a considerable period of time to discuss matters which appear to them very urgent, and if some of these demands are met it is obviously beating the air to proceed with more than a limited number of Measures at the
present stage. I would express the hope that, probably through the ordinary channels, we might be able to come to 6ome measure pf agreement as to what we can do. I say, frankly, that I have not; put these Measures on the Paper without an earnest desire to see them passed. Indeed, as regards my own personal views, I have very strong feelings as to the necessity of these Measures for the proper administration of various matters in Scotland. That is quite true. But at the same time I must accept and be governed by the practical facts with which we are faced. I suggest to hon. Gentlemen opposite that if we could come to any kind of agreement by which, for instance, that very important matter dealing with Sheriff Courts could be taken, if we could be assured that there would be a limited discussion on the Floor of the House with the fullest time to discuss the problem in Committee, then there might be, through the usual channels, an opportunity of securing this legislation in spite of the congested state of business.

Mr. WESTWOOD: The explanation of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and of the Secretary for Scotland leaves us in a greater dilemma than ever. I cannot understand the attitude of the Secretary for Scotland when he suggests that, if through the usual channels we could come to some agreement in connection with these Bills, a further arrangement might be made for the taking of these Bills later on. We have already come to an agreement on the Education (Scotland) Bill. A deputation met the Secretary for Scotland, and the Bill before the House is the Bill which was agreed to by those representatives. I would be surprised if the Unionist Members for Scotland were to allow the Education Bill to be thrown overboard. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury certainly suggested that the Bill had not to be taken to-night, and even that it will not be taken this Session. Yet it is a most important Bill from the educational and administrative point of view. Of the 35 Unionist Members for Scotland every one has a mandate from his constituents or his education authority to support the Bill.

Sir HENRY CRAIK: I must contradict the hon. Member. I have no such mandate.

Mr. WESTWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman does not represent a Scottish county constituency.

Mr. R. W. SMITH: May I make another exception?

Mr. WESTWOOD: Exceptions prove the rule. I defy any other Scottish Unionist to get up and say that he has no mandate. I am a member of the executive of the education authorities, and that executive has unanimously agreed that this Bill ought to pass. We have agreement as between the Labour party and the representatives of the Government, and I understand that the Liberal party also are prepared to support the Bill. It is the one question on which there is unanimity in the Liberal party. I admit that the Secretary for Scotland is placed in rather a peculiar position. He has a large number of duties to fulfil, but for the life of me I cannot understand why he should seek to go against the demands of his Education Department. That Department is anxious for the Bill to go through. Moreover, I have yet to learn that the Scottish Universities have decided against the Bill. In any case, is the Secretary for Scotland to allow Scottish business to be dominated by one Tory Member of the House? If so, there is something to be said on this side. I shall not be a party to the domination of education for Scotland by criminal justice for England. Education is of far more value to Scotland than the Criminal Justice Bill to England. It may be true that a Criminal Justice Bill is required for England, on the ground that there are so many criminals. I sincerely hope that even the good people from England who are present will support me in getting justice for Scotland, and that, if necessary, the Motion will be carried to a Division.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am very anxious to find some solution of the difficulty. I am sure that hon. Members opposite realise that I am as anxious as they are for some of these Measures. Would it be possible to proceed with the Sheriff Courts Bill with an undertaking that it will be completed by 10 o'clock, and then on a subsequent date find some opportunity of taking the Education Bill, which, I am afraid, has disappeared at this moment? If we could come to some kind
of agreement like that, and proceed now on that understanding, other business might be taken.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: If I may, with the permission of the House, intervene again, I should like to reply at once to the suggestion which the Secretary for Scotland has made. Briefly, the position is that there are four Bills on the Paper, two of which are non-controversial, while as regards one other there will be some controversy, and as regards the Sheriff Courts Bill, there is undoubtedly a considerable difference of opinion among Members as to one feature of that Measure. Accordingly I should mislead the House if I suggested that the discussion of that Bill could be disposed of by 10 o'clock. There might be a possibility of getting it through in the whole time up to 11 o'clock, but the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury has made it plain that he intends to get the Criminal Justice Bill to-night and, that being so, it is perfectly clear that the Scottish programme is hopelessly and completely upset. May I remind the House of our position in this matter? We do not make any charge of want of courtesy or anything of that kind, but we say we have been badly treated in this matter. This programme was arranged before the House separated for the Summer Recess, and accordingly associations interested in these Measures made special arrangements and many Scottish Members also made special arrangements to be present to-day. Without any notice at all until this moment, the programme is suddenly changed, and I think from every point of view—while I, personally, always do my best to find accommodation in these matters—we have an unanswerable case, and I am afraid we must adhere to the Motion.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: What is the position of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland? He tells us he will give us an hour or two to discuss Scottish business if by a certain hour we consent to a proposition with which many of us do not agree. Otherwise we shall not get any Scottish business discussed at all. That is a threat to the House of Commons. It comes on the top of the ignoring by the Government of many requests from Scotland, and particularly a
request by the majority of Scottish Members that a certain action by the Ministry of Pensions should be postponed until after discussion. The majority of Scottish Members placed that request respectfully before the Government, but they were simply brushed aside and no time was provided. That is an illustration. Rosyth is another illustration, and the right hon. Gentleman must be perfectly well aware, and I as an Englishman cannot be unconscious of the fact, that in Scotland there is a very deep and growing feeling of resentment at the way in which Scottish business is being treated. Now the right hon. Gentleman says that if we give him a highly contentious Measure in an hour and a half we may get some time afterwards, and he will consider later what can be done for Scottish Bills. He knows more about Scotland than I do, as he is a Scotsman, and he must be aware that this sort of thing is creating a demand among Scottish people for the power to manage their own affairs in their own country. Why does the right hon. Gentleman want this time? We are only going to be here for five weeks, and Scottish interests are to be sacrificed in order that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may take a week or ten days on a highly contentious and totally pernicious Finance Bill. So far as we are concerned, we cannot undertake to abide by any compromise of the kind suggested, or to abate one jot of the demand that such little time as is occasionally given to Scottish affairs shall not be further curtailed.

Mr. FORD: I remember before the Recess having the very happy opportunity of congratulating the Secretary for Scotland on securing reasonable time for dealing with Scottish Measures. An agreement was come to then and the discussion was carried on amicably. Now I come down to the House and I find to-day that the programme with regard to Scottish Measures has been entirely upset. I do not think that the Government realise that this sort of thing is not regarded in any small or petty spirit in Scotland. It is regarded as the climax to a whole series of neglects of Scottish interests. There are big Imperial interests which come before Scottish interests, but I cannot see that an English Bill dealing with criminal jurisdiction is one of these. It
is my wish, and it certainly is the wish of my constituents, that I should do what I can to strengthen the hands of the Secretary for Scotland, from his own side, in maintaining that proper consideration should be given to Scottish Measures and Scottish business.

Mr. STEPHEN: When called upon to speak I think I heard an hon. Member remark that the Scottish Members should be given Home Rule, and if ever there was an occasion in this House when it was evident that our country ought to have Home Rule, that occasion is tonight. I make an appeal to the Secretary for Scotland. I recognise that, not only is he a Member for a Scottish constituency, but also a Member of the Government. I take it, however, that as Secretary for Scotland, he is supposed to have regard to the interests of Scotland, and I do not think from what he has said that the right hon. Gentleman Himself feels that his own country is being treated fairly in this connection by the Government of which he is a member. The Bills in question only deal with a few of the problems which the Scottish people have to face. The Prime Minister not so long ago was appalled by the terrible housing conditions in Scotland. Yet here is the Secretary for Scotland, in connection with this very moderate programme, prepared to sacrifice the interests of his country. I suggest that if he said to the Government that these other Measures such as the Tithes Bill, the Rating and Valuation Bill, and the Criminal Justice Bill were of less importance than the Scottish Bills, and that he himself was prepared to take a strong line and leave his office rather than sacrifice the interests of his country, he would have the united support of all Members from Scotland with the possible exception of one of the Members for the Scottish Universities. I am astounded at the way things are going. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it now comes to this, practically, that the Scottish Members may go back to Scotland and say there is no Scottish business, and that Scottish interests are not to be regarded in this House during this Autumn Session? Has Scotland reached such a poor state among the nations of the world that there is to be no legislation making provision for Scottish needs during all these months? I wonder what
the Secretary for Scotland is thinking about, and what this own constituency and his own Conservative party in Scotland will think about this, because the way in which Scotland is being treated here to-night is an insult to the Scottish people.
We recognise that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury has a very nice courteous and kindly manner, and is willing to meet us in small things so far as he can. But there is a big matter of principle involved in this question and the only compromise for the Secretary for Scotland to offer is to give us an assurance that he will bring in a Measure at the earliest possible date to confer responsible Government upon Scotland. Let him give us a promise to give us a Bill setting up a Scottish Parliament, and then I am confident that my colleagues from Scotland would be willing to accept it, but I cannot see that any compromise less than such an assurance is of any use in the circumstances, and I appeal to the Scottish Secretary, even at this late hour, to repent, to remember what he owes to his own country and to those of his own party who sent him into the House of Commons, and to make it plain that he is not prepared to give up these measures. I am sure we should all agree to sacrifice the Criminal Justice Bill, and I do not think there are so many criminals in England who will get off because that Measure is not being put upon the Statute Book. I do not think that even any of the English Members will be the least bit concerned, unless, it may be, a few members of my own profession, the legal profession, who may possibly expect to make a little more money under the Criminal Justice Bill if it comes into operation. I do not believe there are any of the ordinary lay Members of the House who are very much concerned about this Criminal Justice Bill, and I am quite confident that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury does not want to do any injustice to Scotland, and that rather than do so he will let the Criminal Justice Bill for England go.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: I want to join with my colleagues in protesting against this further injustice to Scotland. Two hon. Members opposite, when the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) rose, said, "Give them Home Rule." It
is a pity that those hon. Members were not in the House about a year and a-half ago, for they might then have assisted us by their votes to get a form of Home Rule for Scotland, but we generally find that, while in a Scottish Debate English Members seem so anxious for Scotland to have Home Rule, when we request it, it is the English Members who prevent us getting it. We do not want to come to England to get these Measures passed. We can pass them much more effectively, more rapidly, and with a great deal less expense through a Scottish House of Commons.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): That would involve legislation, and cannot be discussed now.

Mr. MACLEAN: I was referring to an interruption which made it appear that Scottish Members ought not to be here, and they would not be here if they could get that particular piece of legislation. I hope they will give us it at an early date, because I remember that the Prime Minister received a deputation from us on this question, and offered to give us a reply, which is not forthcoming.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We must accept the fact that the hon. Member and some of his colleagues are here, and must make the best of it.

Mr. MACLEAN: Unfortunately, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury is not making the best of it, but the worst of it, and it is against this worst that we are now protesting. I express surprise at the attitude of the Secretary for Scotland—and of the Under-Secretary, too, with all his pride of race in Lanarkshire—with his splendid country acquisitions in the kingdom of Fife, going round delivering speeches to the Scottish Conservatives, opening bazaars and building sites during the Recess, telling the people what a glorious place Scotland is, and how wonderful the Scottish people are. but in this House we are told that we are less even than the Englishmen whom we chased out of Scotland. Really, the only grudge which I have against my forefathers, I think. is that they did not work half-an-hour longer at Bannockburn. We might not then have required to come down here.
I want to suggest to the Secretary for Scotland that it is about time that he asserted the right of the Scottish people to have their share of time in this House. He complains of the lack of time, as does the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, but that point was met by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), when he said: "You have been absent from this House and from conducting legislative affairs for over three months; you come back here and on the second day you grumble that you have not time to carry through the Measures that in August last you thought you would get through." I suggest that, if there are any Bills to be scrapped, let them be highly contentious Bills that we fear are coming in later on, and let us get on with the Measures that are at least largely agreed upon and that will take very little time. This Motion for the Adjournment has taken a large part of the time that could have been taken up by the Education Bill for Scotland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members say, "Hear, hear," and that we are wasting time. Yes, and I will waste more time if Scotland is not going to have these Measures discussed and passed in this Session. I will make it as nearly impossible to pass legislation as one Member may, and I will obstruct the business that is coming after this is withdrawn. One Member can obstruct a lot and can force closures to be moved upon him, and I am prepared even singly to carry out my protest by obstructing all the later business that is coming on unless a reasonable position is adopted, not by the Secretary for Scotland, because I believe he wishes these Bills to go through, but by others in the Cabinet.
Scottish affairs have to get their fair share of the time of this Autumn Session, or we shall know the reason why. We are going to have discussed in this House, during the five weeks that we are expected to sit, questions on which Scottish people are feeling very keenly. We are not coming from Scotland merely to de bate questions which are going to affect the interests of English people only. We are here to deal with Scottish business as well, and those things that Scotland is resenting, the actions of the Government, these pinpricks that are being applied to the Scottish people, are going to be discussed in this House during these
five weeks. The Secretary for Scotland asked for a compromise, but what is it? It is to get through the Sheriffs Bill, and the Education Bill may come on some time later, but there is no guarantee that it will come on again. When the Bill was called out by the Clerk, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury said "Tomorrow," but if it were called out again to-morrow, he would again say "Tomorrow," and so on to the end of the Session. If we are going to agree to a certain method of procedure in order to facilitate business in this Autumn Session, what guarantees shall we get from the Government that this Education Bill is going to be bought in and passed in the five weeks? If there is going to be agreement, we want our side to have its share of the agreement as well as giving certain concessions to the Government. Unless we are going to receive this, I for one am going to oppose everything that is brought in by the Government, and force them on every occasion to closure me, even if it means making speeches for two or three hours a night.

Mr. D. M. COWAN: As one interested in several of the Bills an the Order Paper to-night, I feel compelled to join in the protest which has been made by so many Members. We have for long past been told by the various Departments that the Bills referred to are of great importance, and that it is essential that they should be on the Statute Book in a very short time. We have looked forward for many years for a, satisfactory solution of the difficulties in connection with sheriff courts' staffs. We have also found that in the educational world there are difficulties connected with the administration of the Act of 1918, and we have looked forward to having those problems dealt with satisfactorily. At very great inconvenience there have come down from Scotland many who are interested in those two Measures, and while we attribute no intentional discourtesy to any Member of the Government, we cannot but feel that Scotland has been very badly treated, and many individuals have been put not only to great inconvenience, but to very considerable expense, and also to very great disappointment with regard to the various Measures in which they have been interested.
I should like to emphasise what has been referred to by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean), and that is that we have already spent, in discussing this Motion, about as much time as would have put two of these Measures through the Second Reading. The Secretary for Scotland knows quite well, I understand, that to a very large extent the Bills on the Order Paper are not opposed Measures, but have been very largely arrived at by compromise or agreement. I really believe an hour would have sufficed to-night, and all the difficulties connected with any one of them could be amicably settled in Committee. If the Secretary for Scotland had gone straight ahead, I believe before 11 o'clock the Government would have got the whole batch of Bills through. The Scottish Members individually have no great interest in some of the Measures before the House, but they have an interest in the Measures affecting Scotland particularly. Not only so, but they have. the time to attend in Committee to discuss the Measures in a satisfactory manner.
I think Scottish Members to-night are thoroughly justified in the attitude they have taken up. I am very glad the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Ford), speaking as a supporter of the Government, has raised his voice against the treatment that has been meted out to us to-night, and I am perfectly certain that if the other Scottish Members who support the Government were present or were at liberty to speak for the interests of Scotland, they, too, would join in the protest made by the hon. Member for North Edinburgh. I do trust that even now the Secretary for Scotland will be able to make some re-arrangement of the business so that these Measures may be brought in. It would be no great hardship to sit an extra day to get these Bills through. There is a very great feeling in Scotland with regard to the treatment they have received. It may be exaggerated feeling, but it is there. I would appeal, also, on the ground of justice. There is this Education Bill, which, I am sure, would have gone through in less than an hour. We are assured that many children are put at a disadvantage and that education authorities are hindered in their work for the want of this Bill. Then, again, some members of the sheriff
courts staffs have been put off for years and years. I understand the first Committee which recommended something for their benefit was away back in the seventies, and still nothing is done. I think this Motion should be carried, and I hope it will have the support, not only of all Scottish Members on this side, but many Scottish Members on the other side, and that every member of the great neighbouring country of England will be as generous as it is just.

Sir J. GILMOUR: Perhaps I may make one more effort to try to solve this problem. I am very anxious that we should reach some kind of agreement. Would it be possible, if we proceeded now with a discussion of the Sheriff Courts Bill till eleven o'clock, that I should have some undertaking from hon. Members opposite, in accordance with an arrangement which was discussed, as I understand, yesterday, that the Criminal Justice Bill might be on a subsequent day allowed to go through in a short period? [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] I am only speaking here as Secretary for Scotland for the time being, but I have also been a member of the Whips' Room in this House for many years, and I am well aware of the difficulty of these negotiations. I understand that a practical agreement had been come to on this subject last night with those in a representative position in the Opposition, and I should have hoped that, in accordance with a suggestion I now make, we might not only have let this Scottish Bill go to Grand Committee, but to have given those from Scotland who are interested particularly in this matter, the opportunity of hearing the discussion, and through the ordinary channels I might have been able to secure at a subsequent date the Education Bill.

Mr. WESTWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the agreement for getting through the Scottish Education Bill? What guarantee is there that there will be the necessary time for getting that through?

Sir J. GILMOUR: That, I think, can be done through the ordinary channels. I have no doubt that we might be able to come to an agreement about the Education Bill, because, as everybody knows, it is practically a non-contentious Measure, and would go upstairs. But if
the undertaking could be given now that the Criminal Justice Bill would be given to the Government in a comparatively short time—not much more than an hour —on a subsequent date, we might then have time to discuss this Scottish business.

Mr. W. ADAMSON: By leave of the House, I want to say, in reply to the appeal that has been made by the right hon. Gentleman, that we could not on this matter pledge English Members to a limited time for a discussion of the Criminal Justice Bill.

Dr. SHIELS: The time which has apparently been wasted just now will not really be wasted if it impresses upon the Government that a different attitude towards Scottish questions is absolutely necessary if business is to go normally in this House. I have great sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland. He has a very difficult task. I am sure that the result of our action to-night will be to strengthen his hands in claiming something more like justice for Scottish affairs. It is not a mere question of the Scottish Members being anxious to advertise themselves. They are a very modest body of men, and what is done is done from a real sense of duty. As a matter of fact the whole of the Scottish people are becoming deeply incensed at the way in which Scottish questions are treated in this House. They are accusing Scottish Members of being spineless and strangely lacking in that individual vigour that is supposed to be characteristic of our race because we put up with the state of affairs which exist in this House. We do not want to have any unfair allocation of time, but we must assert ourselves on these occasions and claim more justice for Scotland.
The Government has paid considerable attention to Scotland during the Recess. As far as one can see, the Government Departments pay special attention to Scotland when Parliament is not sitting. Apparently, it is going to be difficult for us in this short Session to concentrate attention upon any of these Departments. And to-night we have an example where the very small amount of time allotted to very important Scottish Measures has been broken into, because of a desire to get through a Bill in a particular time,
which might very well be taken later in the Session. I welcome very much the speech of the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Ford). If more Government supporters had a little of the independence that he has shown it would be an advantage not only to Scotland, but to the Government. As a matter of fact, I should like to suggest to the Conservative Members who represent Scottish constituencies that they would do a great service to the Government by supporting the protest we are making to-night, because there is nothing that is doing the Conservative Government so much harm in Scotland as their attitude to Scottish questions in recent times. There has been a very great feeling of resentment, and as one who has is not without some small amount of sympathy with certain Conservative Members in Scotland, I throw out the suggestion that as a means of increasing the prestige of the Conservative party in Scotland its Scottish, representatives should show a little more of the national spirit and not be overwhelmed by the preponderance of English Members. Let us have a little more Scottish independence, whether we are Conservative, Labour, or whatever we are. The Government would then realise that it does not do to flout Scottish opinion and to treat Scottish Members in this way. We are perfectly justified in this protest. I think the result will be that these Measures will not be swept away out of existence. Time should be allotted during the rest of the Session, not only for a discussion of these Bills, but for a discussion of the important Scottish questions which have arisen as the result of Government action during the Recess.

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: The Secretary for Scotland says that he is anxious to get the business through. We all know that he is anxious. That suggests to me that there is something sinister behind this movement. We know from the statement made by prominent Members of the Government that they are particularly anxious to economise, and we gather that one of the subjects that they intend to economise upon is education. I do not want to say anything against the English Members at all. Scotsmen are sufficiently big and tolerant not to make any point on that score,
but they can be told about these matters. I take it for granted, however, that the Secretary for Scotland is as particularly anxious as he has said to get this legislation through. The unfortunate thing is that his boss—who is not here—has left instructions what he has to do. The right hon. Gentleman cannot say that he will give us the time at all, unless he accepts the suggestion that I am going to make. I am quite sure it can be carried out, and then we can have a harmonious House of Commons.
We are divided into English and Scottish. The Members for Scotland do not think of their holidays. The English Members are particularly anxious to get away for the Christmas holidays. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I want to offer the suggestion that, if the House will agree to sit during the Christmas holidays and to leave the Scottish Members to deal with the Scottish business, things will go through, and we will be in time enough for the New Year. Speaking seriously, I want to say that if the Scottish Secretary is anxious to get some of his Bills through we are anxious to get them all. He has admitted that the Scottish Education Bill, as it has now been decided, is not a controversial Measure; if there is to be any controversial discussion upon it must come from the other side. Certainly we are anxious, and I think English Members will agree that we are entitled to be anxious, to preserve so far as we possibly can, the educational facilities of the Scottish people. That is all we ask of the right hon. Gentleman. We think it is necessary. We are advised by people in Scotland particularly connected with the educational movement. They want us to get on; then the Front Bench come along without any intimation of their intention, and break an agreement that has been entered into between the Scottish Members on all sides so far as Scotland is concerned. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury comes along, I say, and he says this business is wiped off the board and something new is going to come on. That may be necessary for England. I am not objecting to English legislation being passed, but I do say that after an arrangement has been come to on the part of the Scottish Members to come here to do Scottish business that that arrangement should be carried through. It is no use talking about mak-
ing an agreement if the Government are not prepared to carry out the undertaking that they have given.
It has been suggested that some other arrangement has been come to between our folk and the Government as to the time that was to be taken with this business to-night. I understand that is not quite accurate, that no such arrangement was come to so far as our side is concerned. I can assure my right hon. Friend that had an arrangement been come to by which certain Scottish Measures were to be dropped we should have had information from our Whips, but we did not get that information, and must conclude that they quite honestly believed that the business on the Order Paper was to be taken right through. I do not know that it is necessary to make any appeal to the Scottish Secretary. I agree with all that has been said about his willingness to play the game fairly, and to give us facilities for a fair discussion, and I recognise that he has not the power, that he is acting as he is advised by powers higher than himself. There is no use in our appealing to him, and we can only make it perfectly plain to the Government that if the Secretary for Scotland is to be insulted in this manner by his own colleagues they need not expect that we are going to allow any business to get through this House, if we can hinder it. We are entitled to take the very strongest possible line against this waste of Scottish time.
I put it to the representatives of the Government that it would be wise for them to be a little more accommodating in this matter. At the present time Scotland is, in many ways, in a very much worse position than any other part of the British Isles. In the richest part of Scotland we are threatened with the very worst form of capitalist failure. On the north side of the Forth, Rosytha Dockyard is being taken away; and on the south side of the Forth the great shale industry is being destroyed. That means that something like 100,000 people will be affected in that small area of Scotland alone. Instead of having less time, we ought to have more time, on account of the seriousness of many of our problems. I hope the other Members of the Government will take notice that this objection is not against the Secretary
for Scotland, but against those in the Cabinet who are preventing him from having the necessary time to enable Scottish business to be discussed.

9.0 P.M.

Sir W. JOYNS0N-HICKS: I am exceedingly sorry that there should have been all this trouble, some of which, perhaps, is due to the Home Secretary. It was not the Whips who made any arrangements last night; it was myself personally who saw one or two hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench, who admittedly were not speaking for the hon. Members behind, and I do not want to found on it anything in the nature of a bargain. Let it be said that I was mistaken. I am sorry there should have been this trouble. I do not want to suggest there was any bargain at all. I suggest, therefore, that the Motion for the Adjournment should be withdrawn, and that the House should continue with Scottish Measures for the rest of the evening. I hope that will meet the views of my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland. I suggest that perhaps the best Bill to be taken would be the Sheriff Courts Bill.

Mr. MACLEAN: What about the Education Bill?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Education Bill has been technically called by the Chair and was put down for tomorrow.

Mr. MACLEAN: Will you take it tomorrow?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: We are taking the Locarno Pact to-morrow.

Mr. MACLEAN: Can you give us a distinct pledge as to the particular day upon which you are prepared to take the Scottish Education Bill?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, I cannot.

Mr. MACLEAN: Well, then, there is no compromise.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: There is no compromise at all. I am not asking for a compromise. I am simply saying to you, on behalf of the Government, that they withdraw all suggestion of taking anything else but Scottish business this evening, and I ask nothing in return. If
hon. Members are going to debate the Motion that the House should adjourn, I cannot help it, but it takes more time away from the Scottish Measures, and I am offering for them the whole of the rest of the time till 11 o'clock. It is for hon. Members to decide whether they are going on with an aimless Debate on the Adjournment, or will withdraw the Motion and get on with Scottish Bills.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: In view of the statement which the Home Secretary has made, it is perfectly plain that I have no other course than to withdraw the Motion, which I gladly do, and acknowledge the offer he has made.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — CIRCUIT COURTS AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This small Bill, which has already passed the House of Lords, is essential to the more effective administration of justice in Scotland, and I hope it will present no difficulty and cause no great discussion in the House to-night. The Bill has its origin in an awkwardness that arose through the necessity of preserving the old Royal Burgh of Inverary as a circuit town. In fact, no sitting of circuit courts has been held in Inverary since 1908. No Sheriff Court business is now done there at all; there has been no Sheriff Court business done there since 1919. It has been necessary, however, because of the existing regulations or statutory provisions of the criminal law, to preserve the court house there, although no business has been done. It is with a view to dealing with that situation, at Inverary and at any other places where it may arise, that we provide in the first Clause that circuits shall be arranged by the Lords Commissioners of Justiciary, as they are called, who are the Scottish judges dealing with criminal procedure matters. I do not think it necessary to go through this Clause in detail, but it does provide for circuits to be arranged, and, of course, published by what we call an Act of Adjournal, which is the ordinary form
of regulation familiar to Scottish lawyers.
In the second Clause we deal with a matter which is, in many cases, of advantage to the accused. According to our procedure in Scotland, in the case of a-person who is indicted, there are two statutory diets. The first is the pleading diet, at which the accused is called on to plead guilty or not guilty. If he pleads, guilty, he is either dealt with straight away or remitted to the High Court for sentence. If he pleads not guilty, then he is removed to the High Court for trial and the second diet is appointed for dealing with the trial. Occasions have arisen where an accused person who has pleaded not guilty at the first diet, before the date appointed for the second diet has made up his mind to plead guilty. In order that that event may more conveniently be dealt with, we propose to apply to that case exactly the same procedure as applies to a man who pleads guilty at the first diet. Of course, it is to the advantage of the accused that he should be more speedily dealt with.
The third Clause deals with another small matter, and it enables a jury to be made aware of the charge, which they are to try at a criminal trial, by the clerk reading a summary instead of the whole indictment. As those familiar with such matters are aware, there are certain classes of indictments which are very long and complex, and necessarily so, and, consequently, the jury cannot readily follow the charge if you read the whole thing, from beginning to end, straight away.

Mr. ROSSLYN MITCHELL: Are they not printed?

The LORD ADVOCATE: Yes, they are printed, and supplied to the jury in moat cases.

Mr. MITCHELL: Never in a case where there are previous convictions.

The LORD ADVOCATE: Previous convictions are dealt with separately. In the case of a very long and complex indictment it undoubtedly would be a great advantage if the judge were to settle a summary of it in order to bring more clearly before the jury what was the exact charge, and under Clause 3 we propose to provide for that. Clause 4 is merely a repealing Clause, to give effect to the alterations made by Clause 1 in the existing law. It provides that the exist-
ing law shall continue until such time as the High Court may make alterations under the powers conferred upon them by Clause 1, and that completes the whole matter. I hope what I have said will give the House a general idea of the matters contained in this Bill which I think will effect a great improvement in our law procedure in Scotland.

Mr. W. ADAMSON: I do not propose to discuss the matters which have been referred to on the Second Reading, and all I wish to say is that we shall reserve our right to deal with the points which have been explained by the Lord Advocate during the Committee Stage of the Bill.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I agree with the last speaker that the various points we wish to discuss should be dealt with in Committee. There is, however, one point which I would like to mention. The Lord Advocate is aware that a Committee was set up in Scotland to deal with the question of Appeal Courts in criminal cases. I have been requested to ask why the Scottish Office and the Law Officers have not incorporated in this Bill proposals dealing with a criminal Appeal Court in Scotland. There is no reason why the question of a criminal appeal should not have been included in this Measure. This is a non-controversial matter. The establishment of Appeal Courts in England has worked satisfactorily. I am aware that the people I represent have not a thorough grip of these legal questions. but why has an Appeal Court not been established in Scotland by this Bill, and why has it not been incorporated?
England has tried an Appeal Court for a number of years, and it has proved entirely successful. There is a demand for it in Scotland, and it should be introduced as early as possible. My reason for raising this matter now is in. order to make a protest against the dilatoriness of the Scottish Office in this matter, because this question might have been incorporated in this Bill, or at any rate we should have been given some idea when a Bill dealing with the establishment of an Appeal Court in Scotland is going to be introduced. Of course, I do not oppose this Measure. It is perfectly true that when a man pleads guilty before the pleading diet he is automatic-
ally remitted to the High Court for sentence. I would like to ask would it not be possible where a man pleads guilty to prevent a good deal of the delay taking place between his pleading guilty and him being sentenced. I think the trials in such cases might 'foe hurried forward. I hope the Lord Advocate will be able to give us some assurance in regard to the establishment of an Appeal Court.

The LORD ADVOCATE: With regard to the establishment of an Appeal Court for Scotland, when the Committee which dealt with this subject reported the present Bill was well on its way through the House of Lords. I am just as anxious as the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) to see effect given to that matter, and I assure him that it is under consideration and there has been no dilatoriness about it. I hope we shall be able to introduce the Bill without any serious delay. The matter will be dealt with, but, of course, it will mean the setting up of a new Court. It is a matter which will have to be dealt with in a separate Bill and could not be properly dealt with in a Measure like the one we are considering, which only deals with minor amendments. On this question I sympathise with the views which have been expressed by the hon. Member.

Orders of the Day — ROADS AND STREETS IN POLICE BURGHS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill, after negotiations between the Convention of Royal Burghs, the Association of County Councils, and. indeed, all the authorities in Scotland, has been asked for by them. It is a Bill to amend the Roads and Streets in Police Burghs (Scotland) Act, 1891, which enables the management and maintenance of highways in any police burgh to be transferred from the county council to the town council on terms arrived at by agreement or settlement by the Sheriff. The Measure has been fully discussed
between the parties concerned, and I understand there is general agreement upon it, so that I think it may, perhaps, be considered as a non-controversial Measure.

Mr. HARDIE: I should like to ask if, in the arrangement which has been made, as explained by the Secretary for Scotland, provision is made, in cases where there are private interests, for the question of disturbance of the roads. I am thinking of the case of a road that has been taken over, where a private company has still the right, given in 1894, of laying cables. Is there any provision in the Bill to the effect that those who are responsible for the cutting of the road shall pay for it?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I imagine that in any case where a private company is concerned there is provision for coming to a settlement, and I cannot imagine that there would be any difficulty on the point.

Mr. HARDIE: I know of a case now where, six months ago, certain cuts were made in a certain road, and those concerned have not yet been able to agree among themselves as to who shall bear the expense. I was wondering if such a case were covered by this Bill.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I will have that matter carefully looked into before the Committee stage.

Orders of the Day — SHERIFF COURTS AND LEGAL OFFICERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The purpose of this Measure is, I think, well known to hon. Members from Scotland. It is, broadly speaking, to assimilate the terms of appointment, the conditions of service, and the tenure of sheriff clerks and procurators fiscal and their staffs in Scotland, to those obtaining in the Civil Service. There has been, in the case particularly of the deputes and staffs of these services, a very long history of agitation for improved conditions of service, and the Royal Commission on the
Civil Service recommended that new conditions should be applied in certain cases. The problem was still further examined in detail, after the war, by a Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Blackburn. The Government of the time—I think it was in 1921—decided to proceed on the lines recommended by that Committee, and detailed schemes of reorganisation were prepared, and discussed with those concerned.
Although a substantial measure of agreement was reached, after considerable negotiation, between the representatives of the sheriff clerks and their staffs, it has hitherto been found impossible to obtain agreement on the terms offered with regard to the retiring allowances of existing officers. These are contained in Clause 7 of the Bill. These officers hoped that the whole, or, at least, a very substantial proportion, of their service prior to reorganisation, would count towards their pensions. Representations on this subject have been most sympathetically and, I may say, exhaustively considered by the present Government and its two predecessors, and the Clause as it stands represents, in the Government's view, the utmost concession that can bo offered consistently with the well established principle by which the application of the Superannuation Acts in such cases is governed. In the case of procurators fiscal, the main obstacle to agreement has been the question of pension. With regard to the older members of the Service, it must be noted in this connection that any sheriff clerk or procurator fiscal who at present holds his office otherwise than on an explicit contract to accept assimilation on the new conditions, is offered an option of continuing to hold his office on the existing tenure.
I am very well aware that there has been a feeling of great sympathy with these older officials among Scottish Members in this House and elsewhere, but one has to recognise, I think, that the settlement of the improvement of the conditions of the great majority of those employed in the Service may be in danger if that controversy were to continue indefinitely. I trust that this Bill may be given a Second Reading, and that the questions which more particularly affect the conditions of retiring allowances, which are governed, as I have said, by Clause 7, may be fully and exhaustively discussed in
Committee. That appears to me to be the most suitable method of dealing with this matter, but, while one can feel the very greatest sympathy for many of these difficult cases, I must be quite honest with the House in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, and say that these terms are the outcome of long negotiations and much consideration, not only by one Government, but by at least three successive Governments, and that this Government has adopted the utmost concessions which were arrived at by previous Governments. So far as we are concerned, that is the scheme as we lay it before the House.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I am sure that all Scottish Members who have listened to the statement which the Secretary for Scotland has just made will agree that there is a great deal in this Measure that is not controversial, and that the Bill merely seeks to carry out what has been recommended by successive Commissions in Scotland since 1858; but, as the right hon. Gentleman himself has just indicated, there is a substantial controversy regarding Clause 7 of the Measure, and the provision which it proposes to make in recognising back service in the case of these officials in Scotland. While it is true that the technical and other details of this superannuation scheme are appropriate matters for the Committee stage upstairs, we should altogether fail in our duty as Scottish Members if we did not make our attitude plain on the Second Reading of the Bill, because, undeniably, this is a thing of wider importance than the mere Measure we are discussing tonight, and the hardship involved to these officials in Scotland is sufficiently great to justify some discussion at this stage. Let us notice the history of this matter. We are dealing here with the staffs of the Procurators Fiscal of Scotland and the Sheriff Clerks. As hon. Members are aware, this has been the subject of controversy since 1858, when the first Commission was appointed. Since that time there have been other Commissions or Departmental Committees right down to the Royal Commission under Lord Blackburn, which reported in 1921. In substance, all those bodies had recommended that these officials should be put substantially in the position of civil servants in this country, and they have certainly all
recommended that the posts should be pensionable in the ordinary way. During all that time there has been, of course, a succession of governments, but no steps have been taken to reorganise these services in Scotland. Accordingly, I am putting the case very mildly when I say that that delay has in itself prejudiced those men to a considerable extent and inflicted great hardship and suffering upon them. That is a preliminary point which should be pleaded very strongly in their favour when we come to consider this problem.
Since the negotiations came to a head, there has been every endeavour to try to reach agreement as to the amount of back service that is to be reckoned. But the very most that has been obtained from Treasury Regulations on this point is a recognition of that service back to the beginning of October, 1918. The great majority of these officials in Scotland, the men who are affected, have grown grey in the service. Many of them cannot continue very much longer, and it is plain to all of us to-night that if the amount of back service to be reckoned for purposes of superannuation is only to go to 1st October, 1918, these men are, in many cases, going to retire on pensions which are not very much above the ordinary Old Age pension rate in this country, and which in any case are perfectly inadequate having regard to the responsibilities and duties the officials have discharged. I think most hon. Members familiar with Scottish conditions will agree that these men all along have been paid salaries which are not really commensurate with the duties of the position. In fact the salaries and conditions were described by a body like the Blackburn Commission as "disgraceful." That Commission went to the extent of using a strong word like that— strong in a judicial body of that kind. I was not thinking for the moment of the arena of a Scottish political debate. These men, unless we can secure concessions for them, will have to retire, after all these years of injustice, with the crowning injustice of a perfectly inadequate provision for their old age. This is a Treasury problem, undoubtedly, under the Superannuation Acts of this country, and I should be the last to say one disrespectful word about that great Department of State,
There is a complete reply to the Treasury contention in this matter. First of all, there is the danger, as it is constantly put, of repercussions. That is, if you make a concession in the reckoning of that service in this connection, you will have to do the same thing in other Departments which may at any time in the future come under the State. May I offer this criticism of that argument, that there are all kinds of precedents for reckoning the full back service? There is the National Library of Scotland Act, under which the officials of that department passed into the employment of the State, and although they were not previously Government servants in the sense that back service is fully reckoned, that principle was established and embodied in the National Library Act.
Let us take the wider argument of the repercussion. There is the danger that others would prefer similar claims if you conceded a reasonable proportion of back service to these officials. We all know perfectly well that civil service superannuation in this country is on a non-contributory basis. But here we are actually arguing the case when a substantial contribution has been made from the increased fees of the Courts recommended by that Commission for this purpose. There has been an annual surplus of more than £30,000, and an accumulated surplus of rather more than £100,000 at the present date. The Treasury has no argument at all on the ground of cost, because the fees have been increased for this specific purpose and the money is available. Yet, for some extraordinary reason, the back service in anything like adequate recognition is denied to those officials. I suggest that that is altogether an intolerable state of affaire, and it is not a state of affairs which can be accepted by any Scottish Member, having regard to the service which these officials and their staffs have rendered. The Treasury will also find in the general course of superannuation in this country certain sections in the Act of 1887, and in other Acts for all I know, indicating that where there are exceptional conditions these permit of the reckoning of a bigger proportion if not all of the back service of these men.
The more we analyse, the more we are driven to the conclusion that it amounts
to this: whether these men were really in the position of civil servants in this country, or doing work analagous to the work of established civil servants, and which would be regarded rightly as work for the State, and therefore to be taken into account when you introduce a superannuation scheme. I do plead with hon. Members in all parts of the House that such conditions apply here. This is no party matter. I know hon. Members opposite have a great deal of sympathy with this contention. These conditions are fulfilled in terms of the Superannuation Acts. But for some reason or other there is opposition to the recognition of this claim. I have made our position perfectly clear to-night. I cannot help making this remark that I am profoundly disappointed by the statement of the Secretary for Scotland that, after all the consideration, this appears to be his final word in this matter. I think we shall be able to show during the Committee stage that such an attitude will be an intolerable injustice to these men, and I leave it with this final consideration, that because of the grave delay, over which these men have had no control, since 1858, they have been severely prejudiced in the settlement of this problem, and that delay should operate so strongly in their favour to-night as to concede them a large proportion of that back service which they claim.

Mr. KIDD: The right hon. Gentleman has put the case of these officials very fairly. In all parts of the House we recognise the difficulty before the Secretary for Scotland in bringing forward any measure of this kind which would seek to assist anyone financially, but what he will require to show us is this. I suppose it is common ground that, as a result of the Blackburn Committee, a very large sum of money has been accumulated for the express purpose of redeeming the status of men who are recognised to be wholly underpaid. The right hon. Gentleman estimates the sum accumulated at £100,000. Representing the older procurators fiscal, who do not elect to come under the superannuation scheme as being wholly inapplicable to them, we are entitled to ask the Secretary for Scotland what proportion of that £100,000 is to go to these older members of the staff, for whom the money in large part was collected. It is not a question of the
Treasury at all. The money was raised for a particular purpose. All that the House is concerned with is that it shall be appropriated to the objects for which it was raised.
I notice that correspondence has taken place between the Scottish Office and the Procurators Fiscal Association. A great point is made that you cannot raise the Procurator Fiscal's salary beyond that of the sheriff substitute. May I remind the Lord Advocate of the position of the Solicitor-General and the Judges of the Court of Session previous to the Criminal Procedure Act. At that time the Solicitor-General enjoyed a salary of £900, while the salary of a Judge of the Court of Session was £2,700. Lord Kingsburgh represented that under his Bill he would effect such economies as would enable the Solicitor-General for Scotland to be paid not £900, but £2,000, and enable the salary of a Judge of the Court of Session to 'be raised from £2,700 to £3,600. The Lord Advocate also knows that there has been an agitation against the inadequacy of our County Court Judges' salaries in Scotland. I think the standard salary in many cases is something like £700 or £800, while the minimum County Judge's salary in England is £1,500. I do not think it can be denied by anyone who is acquainted with the work done by those respective Judges that Scottish Judges' work is very largely in excess of that of the English. Therefore it is no argument against the Fiscals, when you are going to redeem the disabilities from which they suffer, that you cannot raise them and not the sheriffs substitute. Do justice to the Fiscals and do justice to the County Court Judges whenever the occasion permits of your doing so, but it is no argument that because one man is underpaid another man should continue to be underpaid. I have no desire to be unduly clannish to members of my own profession, but I am not prepared to be flagrantly disloyal to men who do most important service and who admittedly up to this time have teen wholly underpaid. One's spirit of loyalty to his party can be strained in a case of this kind. I do not say mine will be strained to breaking point, but I urge upon the Secretary for Scotland in some way or another to do justice to these men and to pay over to them the money
he owes them. It is not merely a case of doing justice. It is a case of refraining from holding back money which has been raised for a particular purpose, and has not been appropriated to that purpose. No argument of economy can justify such an action by a Conservative Government, and I hope the Lord Advocate, with the example lying behind him of his distinguished predecessor with regard to the Solicitor-General and the Judges of the Court of Session, will on this occasion do justice to the Sheriff Clerks and Procurators Fiscal of Scotland.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: I am sure all Scottish Members will welcome the fact that a Bill has at least been introduced to remedy what has been a longstanding injustice. At the same time I think there is not a Scottish Member here who does not feel disappointed at the terms contained in the Bill. I associate myself thoroughly with the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Graham), who put the case for these officers most clearly and fairly. I should like to emphasise strongly his argument that this is an injustice which has existed for 50 years. It has been admitted that these officers have not been paid what they ought to have been paid, salaries commensurate with the duties they had to perform, for some 50 years past. That is a very strong argument when we consider the date that is fixed behind which pension rates are not allowed to go, namely, 1918. When we consider the matter in its broad aspects I think full weight should be given to that fact and Treasury Regulations should not be allowed to stand in the way of repairing what is an admitted injustice. I should like the Secretary for Scotland to tell us what will be the position as regards salaries of a Fiscal who is now in the unrestricted class. As I understand it, his salary will be fixed according to circumstances. That is very vague, and it is a very unsatisfatory position for a man—at present there are 21 in that class—to be entirely in ignorance as to what his future salary may be. I should like to emphasise the necessity of all Scottish Members doing all they can in Committee to improve the terms and endeavour to persuade the Secretary for Scotland to agree to improve the terms where he will find very great difficulty in enlarging them.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: In this Bill there one Clause which I hope is to be departed from. I may explain for the benefit of English Members that a Procurator Fiscal is the prosecutor of crime under the Lord Advocate. We have no right of private prosecution in Scotland. All crimes are prosecuted by the Procurator Fiscal and he is one of the most important caretakers, as one might say, of the character and reputation of all the citizens in his area. A Procurator Fiscal of bad judgment, an indiscreet man or one with the slightest trace of corruption or bias, might ruin the reputation of a. vast number of citizens He is absolutely a free man who can only be removed in case of gross misconduct on the report of the Lord Advocate to a Judge of the Court of Sessions, who will inquire carefully into the mistake he has made I do not think there has even been a case of that sort in connection with a procurator fiscal, because the procurators fiscal in Scotland have hitherto borne a blameless record. I find that in Clause 1 (2) that has been departed from, and a new provision has been made to the effect that they may be removed from office by the Lord Advocate without consulting Judges of Quarter Session, and that, under Clause 7 (1), is to be applied even to existing officers. I hope that will not be done, because it is not a position in which a man with the great responsibility of a procurator fiscal should be placed. It is a sound principle that any man in a position where he has so much within his control should be liable to dismissal by a person who from time to time changes, as Governments change. While he is in a judicial position he should be in the position of a Judge of the Court, or very nearly so. The present system gives him a great deal more freedom, and makes him more independent. I have no criticism to make of any Lord Advocate; but it is not right that a man should be in that dependent position and that he should be liable to be removed at the dictum of a single man. It is only right that he should have the protection that he can only be removed after consultation with two Judges.
The Treasury got considerable sums of money for a number of years by raising the fees of the Sheriff Court and the Supreme Court in Scotland. The fees of the Supreme Court were raised
in a most extraordinary fashion. The fees in the first instance were doubled, and another extraordinary fee was imposed. The unfortunate client is charged 10s. an hour for the time his counsel is speaking, as if he were a taxi-cab. That has had a very grave effect upon litigation and has added to the expense of litigation very materially. I do not know that it has shortened the speeches to any serious extent. It is a very ridiculous regulation, and I hope that some day it will be got rid of. If any counsel comes in and mentions cases during the period when any particular case is being heard, the people feel that he has taken up some part of their 10s. an hour. This is a thoroughly wrong proceeding. The expenses are far too high. They have brought in very considerable sums to the Treasury, and instead of devoting the money to the purpose for which it was intended, the Treasury have calmly pocketed it, and are holding on to it. If it were not the Treasury that was involved, it would be the duty of the Lord Advocate to prosecute for misappropriation of money.
The Treasury have had the money for a number of years, and now they come forward and make proposals which are not fair. If you take the case of a procurator fiscal who has served 40 years, although he is to be allowed to date back to 1918, the pension will work out at something like 10s. 6d. per week. It will be better for these gentlemen to go on the unemployment benefit. I do not believe in pensions, either for civil servants or anyone else. I have always been of opinion, especially in regard to the teaching profession, that they should cultivate the virtue of thrift. If pensions are to be given—the Treasury have the money, because they have raised the fees in order to give the pension—the Treasury ought to devote the money to its proper purpose instead of holding it up. They ought to give proper treatment, particularly to these old servants who have been working on very inadequate salaries. When one considers the salaries paid and the possibilities of temptation that might be put in their way, the cleanliness and virtue of the Procurators Fiscal in the way they have carried on has been most extraordinary. There has never been the slightest breath of scandal against the Procurator Fiscal in Scotland. They
have conducted their cases with judicial discretion and fairness, and as one who has pleaded on the other side in Court I want to pay them the highest possible tribute. It would be better not to give them anything at all than to offer some of these men who have served 40 years the pensions that are offered. In these circumstances, although we can go into the matter further in Committee, I wish to enter a caveat against consenting to this Bill as it stands in regard to the power to remove these important public officers and in regard to the inadequate pensions offered to these old and valuable public servants.

Mr. R. MITCHELL: I am afraid that the Secretary for Scotland is finding himself without many friends from the Members from Scotland. Perhaps he will allow me to say how very glad I am that, at last, we have reached the stage of having a Bill to criticise. The fiscal and sheriff clerks in Scotland have been asking since 1854 to have their position codified as civil servants. In 1854 a Royal Commission reported in favour of it, and in 1871 and in 1915 Royal Commissions also reported in favour. In 1920, Lord Blackburn's Commission reported in favour. That report raised the question of finance, and I am referring to it now because of what has been said about the expense of providing reasonable pensions. When the Blackburn Commission reported on the question of making arrangements, the question of finance arose and another remit was made to the Blackburn Commission to consider, in the light of their former report, what steps should be taken in the Courts to meet the necessarily increased expenditure, if their recommendations were put into force. They reported in certain terms, and, acting upon that report, fees were advanced, and for years now practitioners and petitioners in the Court have been paying additional fees for the purpose of meeting the recommendations of Lord Blackburn's Commission. Now, the Secretary for Scotland, having at his call in the Treasury an accumulated surplus, comes forward and recommends not what Lord Blackburn's Commission recommended but something quite different.
Upon the financial details I do not want to enter, but there are two points
of principle in the Bill to which attention ought to be drawn. I suppose that no one who has not had actual experience of work of the procurator fiscal can possibly understand the importance of his work. The whole fabric of the administration of criminal law in Scotland is a very delicate organism. It rests absolutely upon the confidence of the people in those who are appointed to carry out the duties. I find in this Bill two points of principle which this House ought to have before it before they agree to the Second Reading. The first is that, instead of those who are responsible for investigating alleged crimes, and recommending charges being brought, or referring a question to Crown counsel, being as they have always been recognised as appointed for life or for blame, and only removable by the High Court, we are now going to have them removable at will by the Lord Advocate. If we could only be sure that the present Lord Advocate was going to remain in that position permanently, we should not perhaps have a strong objection to this Clause. Obviously, he is not, and no one can foretell who may succeed him. In any event, whoever he may be, it is not good that any man who has the very delicate position of having to decide in the first instance whether any prosecution is to take place or any steps towards a prosecution should be taken should be in the hands, so far as removal is concerned, of any single person.
Another objection upon which I lay the very greatest stress is this. This Bill introduces into the system of criminal law in Scotland a principle upon which a man may hold high public office of infinite importance and at the same time carry on private practice. That principle was in operation for many years, but in 1881 the position had become so shocking that the practice was entirely abolished. There had been in Scotland a great deal of trouble arising out of the perpetual land hunger of the people in the Highlands and Islands, and it was discovered that the person whose duty it was to prosecute certain of these men on account of action which they had taken in connection with that land, was himself the man of business and the adviser of the proprietor of the land out of which the prosecution would arise.
It is said that in large cities a full-time man is appointed. That is true. But everybody who knows anything about the system knows that in large cities and in large counties there is not the same temptation there is in small places. It is precisely in the small places that a man is more liable to influence, it may be corrupt influence, it may be conscious influence, or it may be unconscious influence, the influence of position, the influence of friendship, but it is only in the small places where these unrestricted officers are to be appointed as procurators fiscal. I hope, when we are dealing with such a thing as the administration of criminal law in Scotland, which is so delicately poised that the breath of suspicion would bring the whole fabric to the ground, that it will not be done in such a way as to produce even the possibility of one of these procurators fiscal being subjected either to influence, persuasion, cajolery or threats in the carrying out of his business.
10.0 P.M.
Perhaps, after all, the financial position is more important. I will give the House the case of a man who has had in his discretion the criminal jurisdiction of a great area in Scotland for 40 years. He retires under this Bill and receives 10s. 6d. a week as a pension. A superintendent of police in the same county, not the chief constable, but a superintendent of police, who joined in the same year, retired the other day with a retiring allowance of £360 a year. To the man who was charged with the administration of justice in the whole county you offer £25 a year and to one of those whose business it is to superintend the police of the county you give a retiring allowance of £360 a year. There are men in Glasgow who will be retired under this Bill after 35 years' service with a retiring allowance of £30. There are policemen in Glasgow who will retire after 32 years' service at 52 years of age with a retiring allowance of £116 a year, and promptly go and obtain another job the remuneration of which will supplement their already considerable pensions. Does it seem right, when men have been clamouring for a pension scheme since 1854, that at this stage they should be treated on retirement as being of less importance than one of the most modest constables in the jurisdiction over which they exercise power? I do submit on
those three points to the Secretary for Scotland that, if he desires to retain the admiration of the Members for Scotland, he will yield a little more.

Mr. FORD: In spite of the eloquence of the hon. Member opposite I am not going to endeavour to become a modest member of the Glasgow force, although the inducements seem considerable. I most heartily admire the statement of the case for the officials under the pensions provisions of this Bill which has been made by the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh. I think that he pointed to the action of the Blackburn Commission in the raising of fees for the express purpose of making adequate provision by way of pension for these officials who occupy very important positions in the administration of justice in Scotland.
These people have had the fees in courts raised for their benefit, and it does seem rather a misappropriation of funds —if one can apply such a term to the Treasury and to the Government—if these people are not going to get an adequate pension provision. We are not asking the Treasury to tax people, we are not asking the long suffering taxpayer to pay anything more, but we are asking that a fund earmarked for a certain purpose should be devoted to that purpose, and that justice should be done to men of high character who have done their best work for very little remuneration.

Mr. JAMES BROWN: I am not sure that it is necessary for me to join in this Debate. There seems to be almost unanimity, and apparently it is only the Lord Advocate and the Secretary for Scotland who are against giving justice to our Sheriff Courts' officers. The Secretary for Scotland at the very start of the Debate gave away the case, because he told us very plainly that this was the last word which he was prepared to say on the subject. I submit for his consideration the fact that these men who are now to retire on such inadequate pensions are not civil servants, and that, therefore, he should not be uneasy about laying down a precedent. If they had been civil servants, they would retire with a more or less adequate allowance, but they are not civil servants. In spite of the fact that I noticed the Lord Advocate shaking his head when the hon.
Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Ford) said that the money accumulated was for the purpose of paying these men a reasonable allowance, I am not yet convinced that the money was not collected for that specific purpose.

The LORD ADVOCATE: Among others.

Mr. J. BROWN: That is quite sufficient for our purpose; the money was given for certain purposes, and this was one of the purposes. Then why in the name of goodness should any right hon. Gentleman who adorns the Front Bench refuse to give part of that money in order to satisfy the just demands of these men? I am extremely pleased to see the unanimity amongst Scottish Members. Evidently friendship is much more easily cemented in the Law than in the Church. I am glad that every one of us is agreed that the time has come for justice to be done to these men. It would be a standing disgrace to Scotland and to Scottish Members if these men were allowed to retire with such miserable allowances as have been proposed. It was only to identify myself with other Scottish Members who have spoken that I rose. I do not think there is any adequate argument on the other side, but for some mysterious reason this justice is bring denied. I trust that even now the matter will be reconsidered. These men are amongst the most hard worked in the legal profession in Scotland. They are above suspicion. I agree with the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. R. Mitchell) that their work should be full time work. In this great Empire our procurators fiscal should be able to secure such remuneration as will put them above the necessity of looking after private practice. Even at this eleventh hour I hope that justice will be done.

Mr. MacROBERT: I have held the office of Sheriff in Scotland, and for many years was a Crown counsel there, and I can bear testimony to the good work done by the officials in question. I agree that the remuneration hitherto has been totally inadequate. I do not wish to repeat all the arguments, that have been put forward by other speakers. The quickest way of showing my opinion in the matter is to concur in what was said
by my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. William Graham) who opened the Debate. His statement was moderate and convincing, and I commend it to the earnest consideration of the Secretary for Scotland. I hope that all the Scottish Bills will be dealt with to-night.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I want to express my whole-hearted support of the protest against that part of the Bill which deals with the salaries of these men, who are discharging responsible duties. I was very much surprised at the revelation of the meagre salaries that have been paid to some of them. The information that has been circulated is astounding. It has been admitted by the Lord Advocate that money was raised for the particular purpose we are now commending to the Government. For three years that money has been accumulating at the rate of £30,000 a year. Is it correct, as has been indicated, that the Treasury has laid hold of this money, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is setting out, like a political highwayman, to lift money wherever he can find it, without any regard for the reasons for which the money has been raised?
Reference has been made to the pensions likely to be given under this Bill, and by contrast to the pensions that are given to the police. We recall that the police at one time took a very definite stand in defence of their collective interests, and that they were moved out of the line they had taken by a special deal which the Government of the day made with them. That stands out in remarkable contrast with what is presented to the House to-night. It brings home to every thinking man the idea that when you can bring up strong forces to dictate to some degree, there is a chance of making an impression on a Government, whereas faithful men discharging responsible duties with fidelity, whose situation Commissions have described as "disgraceful," can be deliberately cheated out of their due reward. I do not know that we could find a more discreditable performance. Act after Act has recognised other officials and has based pensions on the full period of their service, but in a case of these men. the pensionable service is to date back only to 1918. That proposal leaves a very bad impression. You will leave the impression that only through the strongest pos-
sible pressure—and that probably brought to bear without regard to merit or demerit—is it possible to make the Government meet the claims which are put forward by men discharging these duties. I wish to enter my strong protest against the Bill in that particular respect.

Mr. SKELTON: I do not propose to go into the merits of the debatable Clause in this Bill as they have been fully stated already. I rise merely to say that I hope the Government, after this Debate, will find themselves in the position of being able to give more adequate pensions and that they will not be bound by the 1918 rule. Very glad shall we be to hear of such a concession from either the Secretary for Scotland or the Lord Advocate. If, on the other hand, it should turn out that no concession is possible then I suggest that we should hear the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on the subject. It is well known throughout Scotland that successive Secretaries for Scotland and Lord Advocates have done their best to extract from the Treasury—what is only common justice—some of the money which was accumulated for this specific purpose. The Lord Advocate will, no doubt, be able to state most admirably the Treasury's reasons for refusing, but I do not think Scotland will be satisfied unless we hear the Treasury's own defence.
The circumstances are exceptional. First we have a series of commissions clearly showing that there is this measure of justice to be done. We then have financial arrangements made whereby a fund is accumulated for the better payment of these legal officials. The fund however is not used for the purpose for which it was collected End I do not think it is possible to deny that over a series of years the strongest pressure has been put upon the Treasury to give up what I venture to call a most absurd red-tape regulation. I used those words not without cause. I think the House is clearly of opinion that in the case of Civil Service pensions, paid out of the ordinary public funds, it is absolutely necessary to have a standard rule, and not to count the years before 1918 is no doubt an admirable practical rule but the funds from which these pensions are to be paid are not the ordinary public funds There is, as I say, a fund specially instituted for the purpose and all who know anything about the question will
agree that the Treasury attitude is one in which form has got the better of common-sense. If the Treasury is going to maintain an attitude which Scotland regards as ridiculous, I strongly urge that we should hear from the representative of the Treasury the reasons for that attitude. I hope, however, that there will be no need for that and that the Lord Advocate will be able to assure the House that this Debate has not been in vain.

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: I propose to use the short time which I intend to occupy in entering my objection, in the strongest manner possible, to the claim of the Treasury. It claims to lay down conditions for the employment, removal, and payment of salaries of men engaged in purely Scottish work. I am glad to know there is absolute unanimity between all parties in Scotland on this question, and surely it is not unreasonable to hope that between now and Committee stage the Scottish Secretary and the Lord Advocate will see whether they cannot meet the united Scottish opinion, particularly with respect to the more or less extreme attitude adopted by the Treasury. Even though the Treasury were likely to be more considerate than it is anticipated they will be, still there is something in the claim of the officials at the Treasury, because I am not one of those who believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury are the persons who decide these questions. I look upon the individuals who are connected with the staff as being largely responsible for that particular claim, and I resent the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary interfering in this matter, and I resent still more strongly interference by officials in the Department, with whom we have no opportunity of discussing the matter in this House.
We on this side who represent Labour opinion in Scotland and who are not particularly too well respected even by a big proportion of the men who are engaged in this particular occupation—we do not: draw very much support from them, speaking generally—recognise that they have a reasonable and a just claim, and we are prepared to render absolute, undivided support to their claim, because it is reasonable and fair, and without regard to partisanship at all. I submit that, particularly on this question of the
interference of the Treasury in this matter, with which they have nothing whatever to do. As the last speaker quite properly said, this money is not raised from taxation, but comes from an entirely different source, and they are putting the sheriff clerks and their deputes and assistants and the procurators fiscal and their deputes and assistants in a very much worse position than any other branch of the Civil Service. I do not think it can be justified, and I am sure the Lord Advocate will not justify it, nor will the Secretary for Scotland, and I wish to impress upon them as strongly as I can that there is in this case as nearly as possible absolute unanimity of the three political parties. We are willing, by giving the greatest amount of consideration, to assist the Government in carrying this thing through, but we ask that the reasonable claim of the united Scottish opinion on a very reasonable demand, made by respectable, intelligent, and highly educated, non-Bolshevik members of the Scottish community should be treated in a different fashion than is the case.

Mr. CLARK HUTCHISON: Being a member of the legal profession, and also being an honorary sheriff substitute in one of the counties of Scotland, I do think it is up to me to say, also, how much I appreciate the work of the procurators fiscal and the sheriff clerks, and I do agree most sincerely with everything the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) has said in asking the Secretary for Scotland and the Lord Advocate to give this matter very full consideration indeed. It seems to me that a very good precedent has been given them in the taking over of all the librarians in what was formerly the Advocates' library and is now the Scottish National Library, and in putting them in the position of civil servants. These procurators fiscal and sheriff clerks' deputies have been responsible for the administration of justice in the remoter parts of Scotland, and I sincerely think their work and their duties entitle them most fully to every consideration that the Secretary for Scotland and the Lord Advocate can give them.

Mr. STEPHEN: I wish to join in the protests that have been made with regard
to the action of the Treasury. I was interested, in reading the correspondence between the Secretary for Scotland and the association of officers, to notice that one of the reasons that was given for refusing to meet what Members of all parties will agree is a legitimate demand on the part of those officers, was the reaction it might cause in another quarter. I do not think the Secretary for Scotland and the Lord Advocate should allow any such consideration to stand between those individuals and what they ought to receive. The Lord Advocate has tried to make it plain that this money for making provision for these individuals was not altogether raised for this particular purpose. At the same time, while there was the desire to meet the claims of the fiscals and the sheriff court officers, I think, seeing that all the Members of the House practically, except the representatives on the Government Bench, are agreed that the case which has been made out is good, it is a very strong position for the representatives of the Government to take up, that they should flout or disregard the united opinion of the Members of all the parties in the House.
We are often told about the glory of the British Constitution, and the fact that we are a democracy, and that there is no Bolshevism in this country, but if the Treasury and the Government are going to disregard the practically unanimous opinion of the Scottish representatives in this matter, it seems to me we have got an instance of Bolshevism on the part of the Lord Advocate and the Secretary for Scotland. If my contention be correct, then in these days, with the Home Secretary so intensely active and industrious, I believe it would be well for the Secretary for Scotland and the Lord Advocate to shed any trace of Bolshevism by seeking to dictate to members of their own and the other parties who are unanimous with regard to the claims of those officers in Scotland. A great deal has been said complimentary to procurators fiscal and sheriff officers. I myself have not had very much experience of them. I have occasionally met a procurator fiscal when he has been sent here from Scotland. I have had a little correspondence with him with regard to constituents of my own. I have also seen the sheriff clerks at election times. On all these occasions my experience has been that they are a courteous,
kindly, and considerate sort of people. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) suggests that I must have met with somewhat different individuals to those he has met. At the same time the procurator fiscal has got an unfortunate job in some respects. It is not a nice job. If, however, it is necessary to have these officers, then it is only fair that we should treat them with justice.
I hope that the Secretary for Scotland and the Lord Advocate are going to meet the opinion of the House of Commons in regard to the claims of these officers. I should like, therefore, categorically to ask the Lord Advocate, when he replies, to give us an assurance that this matter will be left to the free vote of the Members of the Scottish Standing Committee. They can decide on the claims of these officers, and say whether or not they should be met. I hope that the Lord Advocate will be able to give a definite reply, "Yes" or "No," to that question. If he refuses to accept the decision, then it is one more instance, to my mind, of the dictatorship of the Treasury, or the Bolshevism that is inherent in the present Government. Certainly we are going to have a concession made to these men. The Government, with their majority, should be prepared to face the conflict or contest that may arise in regard to demand from other quarters to be put in an equal position. But let them treat each case on its merits. If it is right for these men to have this concession, then do not be afraid of somebody else, who possibly may be able to put up a case without being able to get similar terms from the Government. If it is right, let the men have it. I do not think there can be any question in regard to the justice of the claim that these officers in the Scottish legal societies are making at the present time.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I do not propose to deal in detail with the arguments that have been put forward, but I will try to deal with the definite points that have been made by the various speakers. First of all, let me deal with what has been described as an alleged breach of faith on the part of the Government in not using the proceeds of the increased scale of fees for the purpose of giving better terms for back service to existing officers over the age of 55. There is no
foundation at all for that charge. The recommendations in the Report of the Blackburn Committee on the proposals for increasing the fees was in order to meet the costs of the salaries and allowances of the officers of the Sheriffs' Courts, including such additional cost as would be entailed by the adoption of that Committee's recommendations. I wish to remind the House that prior to this, owing to the addition of bonus and the increase or decrease of the value of money, there was an annual deficiency on the amount then recovered from fees, and the amount then payable even on the admittedly inadequate salaries, plus bonus, of sheriff officers; and the purpose of this increase was undoubtedly partly— we need not bother about the proportion—to meet that deficiency as well as the proposals for improvements made by the first Blackburn Committee. As regards the point on which these increases are now claimed, so far from that having been made a financial proposal by the first Blackburn Committee, their proposal was this, both as regards procurators fiscal and sheriffs' clerks, that they should be given the option—that is, existing officers —of availing themselves of the benefits of any superannuation scheme that might be adopted, subject to its conditions, or of continuing to hold office in terms of their present appointment unaffected by the new arrangements. Those proposals are in the present Bill. I do not suggest this reply as necessarily a reply on the question of the amount, but I do suggest that it is a complete reply to any suggestion of ill-faith as regards the increased fees.
Before I say anything more, I would like, as one having had great experience of, and also considerable responsibility for, procurators fiscal, and also as a result of experience of the staff of sheriff clerks in Scotland, to say that they are a very fine body, and no praise can be too high for them. They have very arduous and responsible duties to carry out, and they do their work very well. It is on that footing that one approaches the present proposals. It is interesting to note, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me, that the arguments we have heard to-night contain nothing fresh beyond the arguments submitted to the Treasury in 1924, at the time when the right hon. Gentleman opposite was, at any rate, partly responsible for the Treasury, and as my right
hon. Friend has already informed the House, our proposals in this Bill are the high-water mark of the concessions then made by the Treasury in 1924. With regard to the question of counting back service, the suggestion has been made that the National Library of Scotland provides an analogous case, but it seems to me that it is hardly analogous to the present position. There we had the offer, a very munificent offer, of a library on certain conditions as to the existing staff. The offer, with the conditions, was either to be taken or left. That is quite different from the present case. Reference was made, too, to police officers' pensions. A police officer has come into the service under pension conditions already existing; and that is the unfortunate distinction which we have to make as regards existing officers in the present service. The Treasury find themselves unable to see any special circumstances in the present case which can justify a departure from what is a fixed rule, and a necessary rule, in that service, and accordingly the proposals of the Bill are as stated. There are one or two other points I shall deal with. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) referred to unrestricted procurators fiscal. These, of course, in accordance with the recommendations of the Blackburn Committee, are not being put on the establishment basis at all, and they will continue on the same conditions as at present, where unrestricted officials are considered desirable. There is no doubt that wherever there is sufficient work a whole-time procurator fiscal will be employed, and where there is not sufficient work for a whole-time official, then clearly the sensible thing to do is to appoint a part-time official, unless there are reasons of public policy which render it more desirable to have a whole-time official, even though it costs the State more. That policy was followed at some of the northern districts for a number of years because it was found desirable, but circumstances have changed, and it does not necessarily remain desirable to do that now.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that the salary will remain the same?

The LORD ADVOCATE: It will remain on the same basis and the salary will
remain the same unless circumstances change. This Bill, however, will not affect, except for the better, the existing unrestricted procurators fiscal. They are not being put on a salary basis, and therefore the question of pensions does not affect them at all. The hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) spoke of procurators fiscal as occupying a special quasi-judicial position. I do not think it is right to say that they occupy a judicial position at all. I know they are public servants in a responsible position, and they have public duties to perform.
Objection was taken also to the power of dismissal and the termination of the services of Procurators Fiscal being in the hands of the Lord Advocate. Although I think that is a right provision, it is a matter upon which I have no prejudices, and the Government are ready to listen to any suggestions for a reconsideration of this point. The Procurator Fiscal is responsible to the Lord Advocate who appoints him, and therefore, the Lord Advocate should have control over the termination of his services. I merely throw that out as a justification of the proposals in the Bill, although the Government are quite willing to reconsider the point. The increase of fees took effect from the 1st April, 1922, and because the increase of salaries was one of the recommendations of the Blackburn Committee, it has been provided that as regards the increases of salary they are to date from that date and not from the present date. In other words, as regards current matters, this money, to that extent at any rate, is to be devoted to the purposes for which it was obtained. Lastly, let me say one word on the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) with regard to a free vote of the House. In a matter which, like this is essentially a matter of the expenditure of money, it would be novel that it should be left to a free vote of the House, and I can hardly think the hon. Member was serious in making such a proposal. In any event, I would suggest that the position maintained by the Government is a matter of principle, and not of this particular case. I would ask the House to give a Second Reading to this Bill now, in order that we may more fruitfully and in more detail discuss any points on
which discussion and, possibly, amendment may be desirable in Committee upstairs.

Mr. W. ADAMSON: So far as my colleagues and myself are concerned, we have no intention of dividing against the Second Reading of the Bill, but we must reserve the right to discuss, during the Committee stage, these matters that have been so thoroughly ventilated to-night. I think the Government and the Treasury have had a very good indication to-night, as far as the Scottish Members are concerned, that they are not satisfied with the terms set forth in the Bill. I do not envy the Secretary for Scotland and the Lord Advocate their task in Committee if we have as united a national party there as we have had on the Floor of the House to-night. I hope that in the interval the Secretary for Scotland and the Lord Advocate will have a very serious discussion, both with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, because it is quite evident, from what has taken place here, that there is a unanimous feeling everywhere among the Scottish Members that the terms provided for in this Bill are not satisfactory. I hope that, by the time we reach the Committee stage, they will have something of a more satisfactory nature to put before us. If they have not, there are troublous times before them in the Scottish Grand Committee.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Far be it from me to rush into a discussion of the details of this Bill, when so many members of the legal profession have been spreading their oratorical wings. The hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton) expressed the hope that this discussion which we have been having would be a fruitful one, but I am afraid that, after listening to the speech of the Lord Advocate, he must have been somewhat disappointed. The Lord Advocate, at any rate, gave nothing away, and gave us no indication that he was going to give us any concession at all. I hope that all those who have spoken, in all quarters of the House, in such a, spirit of endeavour to improve this Bill from the point of view of Scotland and the interests of Scottish legal administration, will not waver, when the time comes in the Scottish Grand Committee, in giving us their support in effecting the
amendments which Members of all parties have unanimously agreed in this Debate are required.
The Lord Advocate referred to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), that we should have a free Division in the Scottish Standing Committee on these proposals, as a sort of joke. Surely, in the Scottish Standing Committee, when Scottish. Members of all parties meet together to discuss this important question of Scottish legal administration, we might be permitted to discuss the matter merely on the merits, and without regard to the political interests of the Government in power. Therefore, I venture to press home, after what the Lord Advocate has said, the suggestion that we should have a free vote on this question in the Scottish Standing Committee, and I also venture to hope that we shall have the support of all Members in all quarters of the House who have spoken so well in this Debate.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I have seldom heard the Lord Advocate so weak in stating a case. His handling of the Church Bill was a compliment both to his intelligence and legal knowledge, and I would have thought, after his statesmanlike ability there, that he would at least have handled this business better to-night. His heart, mind and thoughts are all on our side and against what he spoke. The only part where he was strong was in his reference to a Labour Government. We had no Lord Advocate; he was outside, looking at us from afar. I have no doubt that if the Lord Advocate had been in the House he would have said exactly the same thing as the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton) said to-night. He would not have differed. His opinions would be the same to-night as last year. The thing that has altered is not the man but his office, and secondly his opinions. That is what is happening on this side as well. It is not the business of those who sit here or there or where the Member for Perth sits, merely to acquiesce like dumb driven people in what the Front Bench Member says. I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and his colleagues on the first sign of their independence since this Parliament. Long may it continue and grow and prosper.
My whole intention and basis is against the sheriffs' officers. I have never had that great civility that some people talk of. I have never had any great courtesy from them. Many of my poor constituents have been treated brutally by them. I have no great love for them as individuals, I started with a prejudice against sheriff clerks and all my personal indignation against them, but even with that their statement of the case to any man of any kind is one thing and even I with my prejudice have come to the conclusion that their statement is sound and one which Parliament would be well advised to grant. That is my own view. My constituents in my opinion should have received the best treatment from them. But I hope the Government will relent and grant this small request. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has just come in. He, after all, is the boss and ho should rise in his place and admit that those men have made out an excellent case. I only hope the Lord Advocate and the Secretary of Scotland between now and the Committee Stage will reconsider the matter and grant the concession which the Scottish Members want.

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — HORSES (EXPORT).

Whereupon Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the Order of the House of 16th November, proposed the Question. "That this House do now adjourn."

Captain GEE: I desire to make it clear that I am not raising this question against certain sections who are known as humane societies in any spirit of vindictiveness but rather with the intention that, by letting the public know the truth in its reality, we shall take the first step towards getting the societies in question to rid themselves of the undesirable element, and so get back to the lofty ideals and noble conceptions they had when they first came into being. I desire to draw attention to the Report of the Departmental
Committee appointed by the Minister of Agriculture to inquire into the export trade in horses from Great Britain to the Continent. This House will have learnt with great satisfaction that the Committee, after investigating every charge that was brought both against those engaged in and others who were supervising the traffic, have arrived at this considered judgment.
We are satisfied that the officials of the Ministry and shipping companies are doing their utmost for the comfort and well-being of horses on sea journeys, and that the horses are fed on board ship.
That is very satisfactory, but that statement does not add very much to the knowledge of this House, because as far back as January, 1922, the then Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries made this statement:
I do not hesitate to say that not only have the cruelties been eliminated as far as transport goes, but that the foreign countries are concerned in seeing that no avoidable suffering is inflicted upon animals on arrival and in transit to the slaughterhouse.
11.0 P.M.
The feature of the Report to which I wish to draw attention is the revelation that has been made by this Committee of the persistent mendacity of what are called humane societies, that is in deliberately circulating false information in order to obtain money from the general public. They have insisted upon doing this in spite of the repeated warnings that have been issued by successive Ministers of Agriculture and in spite of many invitations to bring forward any evidence of contravention of the very stringent conditions that the Department has laid down. In spite of those invitations, for the past four years the directors of these companies have carried out a campaign, marked by, one might almost say, the most reckless disregard of any symptom of truth whatever, particularly one society, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which has gone so far as to speak of "England's shame." As the result of this campaign of calumny against shipowners and civil servants, the Government instituted in March last a representative tribunal to inquire into the real facts of this trade of the export of horses from Great Britain to the Continent. The Report now presented reveals for the first time that for four years these professional collectors of
money—I have no hesitation in calling them by their proper name— have been exploiting the public through speeches and pamphlets which the Committee of Inquiry have described in the following terms:
Hypocritical… Evidence obviously untrue… Vague charges which no one is able to substantiate… Charges without foundation… Most discreditable pamphlets.
These, I would remind the House, are not my terms. They are terms in the Report of this Committee of Inquiry.
My charge against these societies does not stay there. I would particularly call the attention of the House to the discovery made by this Committee of Inquiry that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals have been using a faked film in order to obtain money from the public. Evidence of this is easily obtained, in the form of sworn affidavits, that Belgian butchers have been coerced and bribed into committing acts of cruelty in order that this society could be able to give to the public in this country pictorial representations of facts which really do not exist. If I were to leave that statement just as it is, it would still remain a statement of fact, but as we have the evidence—I am sorry the excessive price puts it beyond the reach of the public—if the House will bear with me, I will read the affidavits.

Mr. ROBERT MORRISON: Can the hon. and gallant Member say whether the Committee actually saw the affidavit, or only a copy of it?

Captain GEE: I am reading from the evidence. The affidavit can be obtained here. If my hon. Friend doubts my word, I am prepared to make my statement in any hall in the land.

Mr. MORRISON: I am not doubting the hon. and gallant Member's word. I am only asking whether the Committee saw the affidavit, or only a copy of it?

Captain GEE: They were quite satisfied, and so am I, and so must be any impartial, unbiassed person. This affidavit can be produced in evidence in any Court of Justice in the land. It is a sworn affidavit, and it is at the Ministry of Agriculture to-day. It is to the following effect:
I, the undersigned Frans Cools, of Willebroek, butcher, declare that I was
given twenty-five francs to slaughter a horse for the purpose of making cinematographic films.
Here is a further statement:
We, the undersigned, Louis Dierckz, butcher, and Pierre Caloy, slaughterer. declare to have each received the sum of five francs to slaughter horses on the public road and in view of the cinema.
I think that is all the evidence that I need read out from the affidavit to convince and to assure the House that that society has been guilty of a gross act of cruelty in order to fleece the public of money.
Now I come to the real point. This House is entitled to know whether it is the intention of the Government to bring to the bar of justice those persons who by fraudulent practice and mendacious representations in speeches, posters, pamphlets and pictures, have been enriching themselves for a good many years at the expense of the kind-hearted and credulous people of this country. I notice that the financial cost of this inquiry—to say nothing of the amount of time that has been given to it by the Committee for an extended period, and the fact that civil servants have been taken from their duties—exceeds £400. We hear cries for economy from all parts of the House. What is the benefit which the country will get from this expenditure of time and money unless it is that the culprits are going to be brought to justice? It is useless for the Ministry to say that the Ministry is now fully aware of the facts. It was aware of the facts in 1922, when the Minister publicly announced that cruelties had been eliminated, and because the facts have been published there will be a check placed upon these societies. That is not the case, because in 1921 the then Minister of Agriculture drew public attention through the "Times" to
the deliberate exploiting of the natural indignation of the public by means of allegations which cannot be sustained.
I may refer to one or two definite expressions that have been used by the Committee. The particular part of the report to which I am referring is called,
evidence by certain humanitarian societies.
We find this.
We desire to place on record our considered judgment that the charges made by
Mr. Smith are without foundation in fact, and further, that the whole of Mr. Smith's evidence is unreliable.
They then quote several examples of evidence given and sifted, and they' arrive at this conclusion:
The above are examples of evidence given by Mr. Smith, which are obviously untrue, and we are of opinion that no part of his evidence can be relied on.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: Will the hon. and gallant Member say who Mr. Smith was?

Captain GEE: The Report can be obtained from the Vote Office. He was one of the officials mentioned of societies living by charitable contributions.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Could the hon. and gallant Member say on whose behalf Mr. Smith was giving evidence?

Captain GEE: Very likely I could, but I suggest that if the hon. Member is as interested in this matter as the is supposed to be, he is quite as capable of reading the Report as I am, especially as it is to be obtained gratis from the Vote Office. Mrs. Matthew is another paid official of one of the humanitarian societies. They say:
Mrs. Matthew proved herself a most difficult witness, inasmuch as she made vague charges, not only against the port veterinary inspectors, but also against the Ministry itself, which she was in no way able to substantiate.
It goes on to refer to another pamphlet issued by another defence society which used these words:
Blinded and shattered pit ponies, cast Army horses and those too painfully diseased to be seen in England are being roughly shipped to the Continent,
and they say,
Not only is this statement untrue, but it is the reverse of truth. … We regard it as most discreditable that pamphlets of this character should be issued to the public … Such pamphlets as the one referred to cause needless pain and anxiety to humane people who have not the time and opportunity themselves to investigate the conditions of the trade.
I may give one more quotation, and I only wish that all the Members of this House could read all the report and the evidence:
We desire to add that the campaign which has been conducted in recent years by the humanitarian societies in connection
with the traffic in the export of horses to the Continent has been based very largely on a state of things which has ceased to exist.
It is our proud boast in this country that our law is no respecter of persons.
Day by day in our criminal courts we see the poor and needy, who are in dire distress and need, prosecuted for obtaining donations by false pretences, and they are sent to prison. I would like to ask the hon. Member who is to reply for the Government if it is intended that our law is to deal thus with the poor and needy, while those who beg from palatial offices, and who can secure high salaries for themselves, are to go scot free. If so, that is not my idea of British law and justice. There is a very salutary practice in our civil courts whereby, when His Majesty's judges are investigating any commercial transaction, and they have found evidence of fraud, the papers are impounded and forwarded to the Public Prosecutor. Such an example as this is sufficient precedent for the Minister of Agriculture to send the information and papers which he possesses to the Public Prosecutor, with a view to getting a thorough inquiry into the working and finances of these self-styled humanitarian organisations; and, by doing this, I believe that we shall take the first step towards putting a check upon these societies, which do nothing more nor less than traffic in human beings.

Mr. HAYDAY: I am rather sorry that Parliamentary business will not permit of more time being given, since this very important subject, if left in its present state, might be misrepresented to the British public. There is only one alternative, and that is, if any special arrangement can be made to place the minutes of the evidence before that Committee within the reach of every citizen. If that could be done, not at the price of 30s., but for something like a half-a-crown, I am certain that the minutes of evidence themselves would be ample justification for the very definite nature of the Report. I am not in any sense going to discredit the general usefulness of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, but I am going to suggest that there is such a thing as being over-zealous and prejudicially blind to facts as they presented themselves to that Committee, which sat for so long a time.
I am sure that no one will accuse any member of that Committee of Inquiry of
having any desire other than to probe to the bottom the export trade in horses. As a member of that Committee, in common with others, I can say that our determination, when we originally met, was not to be satisfied after merely taking evidence, but to see things for ourselves, as far as we could. In company with various members of the Committee at different times we went to the docks and saw the horses brought there. It had been declared that the horses had no adequate shelter and were never watered. We saw the permanent arrangements—not temporary arrangements—for the horses resting under cover, for drink being made available. We witnessed the examination, saw the horses put aboard the ship for conveyance, travelled with them on the same boat, visited the horses during the passage of the boat across the North Sea, saw them unloaded, saw them placed in charge of the authorities on the other side, saw them taken to the stabling near the abattoirs, and traced the thing right through on more than one occasion.
In some pamphlets it is alleged that these visits were known, that everything was prepared, and that we only saw those things that it was deemed advisable we should see. I question that. I think we were all men of ordinary sense, and our visits were not blazoned forth. I made up my mind on the Friday night to go at eight o'clock on the Saturday morning, and another member of the Committee accompanied me. I have been in one of these places with another member of the Committee, and I have seen the slaughtering taking place without a permit when we were actually trespassers. We returned after we had got a permit and saw the same method pursued. I cannot but regret that the societies could not accept the Report of the Committee with a large amount of pleasure and congratulation to think that the traffic in horses is so wonderfully improved. I will venture to say on the Floor of the House that horses are rejected at the ports as unfit for work or travel without unnecessary pain, and horses can be returned and are returned to work in our own streets here in such condition that they are declared not fit for the export trade. No blind horses had ever been passed for transhipment abroad in connection with this trade.
It is true that a considerable amount of the evidence submitted to us was gathered from sources where the desire rather surmounted the practicability of definite inquiry being made. I have no hesitation in saying that the film depicts a state of affairs not common to the traffic at all, and does not in any sense represent the general conditions. There can be no more sorry sight than a society claiming to exist for the prevention of cruelty condemning a custom, and then agreeing that Pathé Frères should be engaged to take a film—that men should be paid to kill a horse, in a fashion that was said to be the common practice, in such circumstances that women and children were able to witness the agony of the horse while the film operator was taking the film.
I have no desire to prolong discussion. All I need say is that I am very sorry the Department fixed the price of the Minutes of Evidence at 30s. That is, no doubt, justified on the ordinary scale of charges for such volumes, but, since pamphlets have been issued which only deal with the Report, and give excerpts from the Minutes, it would be better for the peace of mind of the general public that the full volume should be brought within their purchasing power. If they could see the evidence, I am sure the public would feel more confidence that the result of the inquiry gave them the assurance that, whatever might have been said of the export trade in horses prior to 1921 or 1922, it could not be said of the traffic now, and that the traffic is conducted now under as humane conditions as it is possible for one to conceive a traffic of that kind being carried on.

Major Sir HARRY BARNSTON (Controller of the Household): I commence the very few remarks I am going to make by expressing my regret that there is no one to reply who is directly connected with the Ministry of Agriculture. I should like also to say, as I said in answer to a question, that my right hon. Friend has had no time at all to consider this Report and make up his mind what he should do or what he ought to do as regards the action the humanitarian societies take. I think the House will agree that it is perfectly scandalous that the feelings of humane people who love animals should be misled by pamphlets
and statements which have no foundation at all and which, in most cases, have been proved to be absolutely untrue. I was going to read what the Committee said as regards that, but my hon. and gallant Friend has already done so, and it will suffice for me to say that the Committee reported that they considered these pamphlets and statements were most discreditable to the societies concerned. My hon. and gallant Friend suggested that legal proceedings should be taken against these societies. I should, in the first place, like the House thoroughly to grasp what was the nature of this Departmental Committee. There was nothing of party about it. My hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) was on the Committee for the party opposite; the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) represented the party that sits below the Gangway opposite, and the hon. Member for Newark (Marquess of Titchfield) represented, I presume, the party to which I have the honour to belong. They had the advantage of the presence of Lady Emmott, the Earl of Haddington, and a very well-known veterinary surgeon. That Committee was presided over by Major J. W. Hills. Many of us had the privilege for many years of being in this House with Major Hills, and anyone who served here and know him here, no matter to what party he belongs, realises that he was one of the most humane and kind-hearted of men and one of the best fellows that any man ever knew. That being so, I cannot help thinking it is impossible to imagine that anyone would be so foolish as to be taken in after reading the report issued by the Committee to whom, I think, the whole country ought to be grateful for the trouble which they took.
Let me for one moment speak of the work of the Committee. The export of horses is governed by two Acts of Parliament, and the effect of the provisions of these Acts is that no horse may be shipped to Europe unless it is certified by a veterinary inspector of the Ministry as "fit to be conveyed and disembarked without cruelty and also fit to work without suffering." The Committee came to the definite conclusion that it was incorrect to say that unfit horses had been
allowed to be exported, and that, generally speaking, the standard demanded for an export horse was greater than that demanded for a working horse in this country. Then the Committee proceeded from that to say that these horses travelled by sea under conditions which were all right. I have not time to go on, at this late hour, into what they say in the Report, which everyone can read for themselves, but may I mention this? Shipping companies are required to report on casualties which occur on the voyage, and, during the four years 1921–24, 105,773 horses were carried, and the total casualties were only 135.
Then the Committee also went very carefully into the question of the abattoirs and the way the horses were destroyed. One point has been mentioned several times to-night, namely, the price at which the evidence can be bought, 30s. My hon. Friend said he was sorry that price had been fixed. That, of course, has nothing to do with the Ministry of Agriculture. The net cost of printing alone was £357, and on the general principle in operation in the Stationery Office the selling price of the Minutes of Evidence should have been 45s. The price was specially reduced to 30s. a copy, that is, by one-third. In view of the nature of the publication, I understand that the Government—and that, of course, means the Treasury—cannot agree to any further reduction; but I am bound to point out that the Report of the Committee is on sale, that it is very interesting to read, and can be bought at the price of one shilling. I do not want to detain the House, but I think I am justified in saying that we hope these societies in future will be more careful about their statements and about their facts.
These untrue stunts do not do anybody, least of all the poor animals, the least good. I am sure every man in this House is as anxious as he can be that all animals, and especially horses, should be treated with that kindness which their noble nature demands from us all, and I think the House is grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for having raised this discussion, which I trust will permeate the country, and dispose of false statements and false facts.

Sir ROBERT SANDERS: I desire to thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman the
Member for Bosworth (Captain Gee) for having brought this matter forward. I hope it will not be left where it is, A very serious accusation has been made against a society which has done good work in the past. That society has, in so many words, been accused of having published statements known to be false for the purpose of collecting subscriptions from people on whose feelings it worked by the strongest possible means. I hope some way may be found by which that society will be given the opportunity of explaining to the public, to whom, I think, it owes that explanation, the reasons why it acted in this particular way, leaving the public to judge whether that explanation is or is not sufficient.

Captain BOWYER: May I ask my hon. and gallant Friend one question? I speak as one upon whom all this has come as a great shock. Reference has been made to humanitarian societies. Would it not be fairer to say whether those humanitarian societies mainly
consist of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals? Are there other societies, and, if so, what are they called? I cannot gather, in the time I have had to look at the Report, whether the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals were involved, or other societies of which I can see two mentioned, and I really think, in justice to the societies themselves, the Minister might say whether all are equally involved, or whether some are more to blame.

Sir H. BARNSTON: In answer to that, if my hon. and gallant Friend will look at page 27 of the Report he will see, I think, that the worst pamphlet was issued by the National Equine Defence League, but other societies are also mentioned.

It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Order of the House of 16th November.

Adjourned at Half after Eleven o'Clock.